Re: Fcp woes ..final

On Thursday 20 March 2008 19:05, freenetwork-S0/[email protected] wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > We are not going to make radical changes to FCP at this point. Backward 
> > compatibility may suck, but it's necessary when we have a number of 
working 
> > and widely used clients. Minor changes are however of interest - if they 
are 
> > justified.
> >   
> My wishlist for FCP3:
> 
> * node generated message IDs to ensure true uniqeness and unguessability 
> of node-IDs to protect different FCP client from another

If the client wants to store an ID. What if it doesn't? More complexity for 
little gain.

> * usage of JSON [1] for the messages. This is standardized and easily 
> parseable. Another *great* feat is it's easy to convert a JSON-message 
> into a Java bean and vice versa [2], skipping the whole manual parsing 
> of fields altogether and concentrating on the work to do.

If it's java-specific it's useless, you can always steal the code you need 
from Fred (as jSite does).
> 
> If requested, I can provide elaborate snippets how to use the beanifying.
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON
> http://json.org/ (notice all the JSON-libraries freely available)
> 
> [2]
> http://json-lib.sourceforge.net/index.html (there are more)

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBH4uMGA9rUluQ9pFARAmyKAJwIakvnU6NMIs7kl8zfcbrC4b3+awCeMhVi
eBj97cvAYFym6/OGNjq/1Rs=
=rHH8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----