On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 15:18 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote: > Kim van der Riet wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 14:43 +0000, Martin Ritchie wrote: > >> On 17/01/07, Kim van der Riet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> IIRC, there are some difficulties in supporting both at the same time - > >>> issues that the protocol does not resolve. For example, framing: When a > >>> ProtocolInitiation is received by the broker, how does it know whether > >>> to use the new request/response framing or old MethodBody frame to send > >>> the Connection.Start method? > >> I thought the ProtocolInitialisation was used to negotiate the version > >> for the connection so it would know what versions it supported. If it > >> supported both it would return the correct frame MethodBody or > >> Connection.Start if it didn't support the version presented it would > >> just close the Connection. > > > > But if we successfully negotiate a 0-9 connection on a broker which > > supports both the new (Request/Response) AND the old (MethodBody) > > framing - so as to be 0-9 and 0-9-WIP compliant, which would be used to > > start the connection? It seems to me that there is no way for the client > > to inform the broker up front. > > Wasn't the 99 major number reserved for WIP type work? Can we claim the > 99-1 id for the WIP sections of 0-9?
Good suggestion. Kim
