On 24/10/13 05:26, xor wrote:
> On Friday, October 18, 2013 04:45:40 PM Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> There doesn't need to be. In ALL cases, FCP works like this:
>> I send a message with Identifier.
>> I get back a message (possibly an error message) with the same Identifier.
>>
>> At least, that's h
On 25/10/13 02:05, xor wrote:
> Hi,
> the last remaining TODO of merging the "event-notifications" branch of WOT to
> the master branch is to ask you guys for your opinion on whether you are OK
> with the FCP API. This mail does that.
>
> Short summary of what event-notifications provides: Before
Okay, to clarify, bearing in mind that I don't have time to go point by
point: In the FCP *client layer* API. It does precisely what I am asking
for: Any transaction is identified by the "Identifier" field, an
arbitrary but unique field chosen by the client. This does not identify
a connection, it
