Hi Damian!
Thanks a lot for your feedback! The proposed event formats are not at
all set in stone. If we can change formats to make events easier to
parse, by all means let's do that. You probably have more experience
with the control port than anyone at Tor, so I say let's listen to you.
On 2
On 2/7/13 5:45 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Karsten Loesing
> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> here's a proposal that defines three new controller events for the
>> TestingTorNetwork mode that shall help us better understand connection
>> and circuit usage in private T
> I wonder if we should avoid restricting connection types in the spec by
> defining this argument as connection type _string_ as opposed to an
> enumeration.
That depends on how volatile you think it'll be. If it's reasonably
static then an enumeration would probably be best.
> Has the advantage
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 14:27:33 +, Damian Johnson wrote:
...
> I cringe a bit to suggest it, but maybe a mapping in a mapping?
>
> CELL_STATS PCircID=8 PConnID=47110 PAdded=created:1,relay:1
> PRemoved=created:1,relay:1
You can as well go wild and use recursive syntax:
CELL_STATS PCircID=8 P
