> BTW, what are the limitations of the SimplifiedClient class?
What do you mean by limitations? I wrote it, so I'm the one to ask. :-)
Also, if it doesn't do what you need, I'd be happy to extend its
capabilities unless what you need is sufficiently complex that you'd be
better off using the stra
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:04:55PM -0500, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> > > > Will the node process redirects?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > I think the http-in-node will have to do redirects, so the functionality
> > may have to be on the node side...
>
> Yes,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 12:26:28AM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:23:55AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:15:11PM -0500, William Wise wrote:
> > > Thanks! Of course that begs the question when will 4.0 be released? :-)
> > > ...JK...
> >
>
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 07:04:55PM -0500, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> Yes, but IIRC Oskar wants to leave redirect-following to the client. I
> don't know if it's the best approach; I can see the argument for treating
> FCP like HTTP and doing all the processing and redirecting beforehand.
> Then again
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 06:50:40PM -0500, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> > I'd hate not having a keep alive option, which seems to be the case in the
> > whiterose doc. Anything that keeps unnecessary connections from happening
> > is a plus, TCP has timeouts on these things.
>
> Good idea?
They are l
rg
> [mailto:devl-admin at freenetproject.org]On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 7:09 PM
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] Client protocol implementation...
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 06:41:21PM -0500, William Wise wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 04:09:08PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 06:41:21PM -0500, William Wise wrote:
> > Since the client protocol has finally been defined I was wondering if anyone
> > knows the timeframe for an implementation to make it into CVS?
>
> There will be a versio
cks on it.
>
For 4.0 or for 0.4 ?
> >
> > Will
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: devl-admin at freenetproject.org
> > [mailto:devl-admin at freenetproject.org]On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 7:09 PM
> > To: devl a
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> Yes, but IIRC Oskar wants to leave redirect-following to the client. I
> don't know if it's the best approach; I can see the argument for treating
> FCP like HTTP and doing all the processing and redirecting beforehand.
> Then again, I can also see the
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> > Will the node process redirects?
>
> No.
>
I think the http-in-node will have to do redirects, so the functionality
may have to be on the node side...
> > Can I batch together multiple searches befo
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> > Will the node process redirects?
>
> No.
>
> > Can I batch together multiple searches before I get results?
>
> No.
>
How you going to do MPC thingies then? Multiple connections?
> > I'd hate not
Will the node process redirects?
Can I batch together multiple searches before I get results?
I'd hate not having a keep alive option, which seems to be the case in the
whiterose doc. Anything that keeps unnecessary connections from happening
is a plus, TCP has timeouts on these things.
_
: Re: [freenet-devl] Client protocol implementation...
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 06:41:21PM -0500, William Wise wrote:
> Since the client protocol has finally been defined I was wondering if
anyone
> knows the timeframe for an implementation to make it into CVS?
There will be a version in 0.4
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Anderson wrote:
> > > Will the node process redirects?
> >
> > No.
>
> I think the http-in-node will have to do redirects, so the functionality
> may have to be on the node side...
Yes, but IIRC Oskar wants to leave redirect-following to the client. I
don't know if it's
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Anderson wrote:
> How you going to do MPC thingies then? Multiple connections?
I guess so. I don't know if the High Gods will smile on this, it's quite a
bit more complicated and opening multiple connections isn't terrible IMHO.
And stay as far away from that MPC*.jav
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Chris Anderson wrote:
> Will the node process redirects?
No.
> Can I batch together multiple searches before I get results?
No.
> I'd hate not having a keep alive option, which seems to be the case in the
> whiterose doc. Anything that keeps unnecessary connections from h
Since the client protocol has finally been defined I was wondering if anyone
knows the timeframe for an implementation to make it into CVS?
I'm currently working with the Client and SimplifiedClient classes which
aren't too bad once you get to know them but would like to be able to build
native CO
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, William Wise wrote:
> Since the client protocol has finally been defined I was wondering if anyone
> knows the timeframe for an implementation to make it into CVS?
Whiterose now supports FCP. I've implemented the get part already in my
client...
> I'm currently working with
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:20:16AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > There will be a version in 0.4 (Oskar is rewriting the whole node-client
> > interface stuff for 0.4 since the current mechanism is very
> > inefficient), I am unsure if anyone is working on it for 0.3.8 - any
> > volunteers?
> I'l
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 06:41:21PM -0500, William Wise wrote:
> Since the client protocol has finally been defined I was wondering if anyone
> knows the timeframe for an implementation to make it into CVS?
There will be a version in 0.4 (Oskar is rewriting the whole node-client
interface stuff for
20 matches
Mail list logo
