dcdev mailing list

What I've seen you have done so far is quickly going down to technical stuff, I'm used to a more .. discussion of some sort were you dont decide _how_ to do things, but _what_ it should do it. Yes, this may be a "mickey$oft" way of doing it, I dont know. But atleast you wont be stuck on a subject for a couple of weeks just to decide how a single thing would look like in the end (we are far from a complete protocol)
It's called 'development', you set up guidelines in the beginning to develop a finished product (in this case the protocol is a product, even if it isn't end-user - if you get me). A example of this:

1) the description of _what_ it does:
"When a user connects and is accepted by the server, the server should respond with a message indicating that it is ready for authentication information. This message should (optional) include the client's reverse look-up dns. The client in return responds with it's proposed nickname and password (if any, optional)..."
2) the text explaining _how_ it does _what_:
Client connects and is accepted by the server. The server (hub) initially sends `AUTH dns=the-client-dns.example.com', telling the client can send auth information. The client responds with `NICK foo bar', telling the hub it would like to use the nick `foo' with password `bar'.

note! this is _not_ a proposed protocol, just a way to make a concept of one.

I know that discussion of _how_ is sometimes required to decide _what_ should be included in the protocol, and that `what' is already defined in the current protocol.

We are currently discussing how a search should look like when we even hasn't decided how a handshake should look like. Yes - the handshake is not a big deal, but it can tell what information a user should have (like the current with email, description, connection speed, sharesize and so on).
Yes - the search part is the biggest one, and therefor more important.
But it would be good if we could get anywere with the protocol instead of discussing details (I have myself to blame aswell, as of my last mail). Like I said, comeon.. not even have we decided what info should be included with the user.

Not even the choice of binary or text protocol affects the `what' concept of the protocol, nor does it define the syntax used. So I say a `what' concept should be done as the number 1 priority.

I may be a bit revolutionary, but most of you seems just eager to showoff with teq and programming skills. I just like to get the concept done (I may have called it `definition' or `description' earlier in this mail, but I figured the out the word [concep] ;)

as fnord stated in the beginning of this mailinglist: "Let's get this show on the road, then. :)"

/Carl-Adam

ps. i originally wrote this and my reply to fnord and fredrik's mails about searching as one mail, but they kinda got off-subject from eachother, so I splitted them.

Not even the choice of binary or text protocol affects the `what'
concept of the protocol, nor does it define the syntax used. So I say a
`what' concept should be done as the number 1 priority.

me, me ... I know the answer :) I think (but I should not be alone) that the 'what' concept is "share and talk". Am I wrong ? :)

Eric

eric wrote:

Not even the choice of binary or text protocol affects the `what'
concept of the protocol, nor does it define the syntax used. So I say a
`what' concept should be done as the number 1 priority.

me, me ... I know the answer :) I think (but I should not be alone) that the 'what' concept is "share and talk". Am I wrong ? :)

:p No, you're not wrong. But please excuse me for my bad english. What is a good name to describe what I had written then?

/Carl-Adam

ps. why does my mail client (thunderbird) tries to reply directly to you, eric, instead of the mailing list?

:p No, you're not wrong. But please excuse me for my bad english. What
is a good name to describe what I had written then?

try to give a description, we will try to guess. 1 ice-cream for the winner ;)

ps. why does my mail client (thunderbird) tries to reply directly to
you, eric, instead of the mailing list?

perhaps because when I reply, I do a "reply to all" and the e-mail contains 2 receivers.

Eric

Carl-Adam Brengesjö writes:
> eric wrote:
> >>Not even the choice of binary or text protocol affects the `what'
> >>concept of the protocol, nor does it define the syntax used. So I say a
> >>`what' concept should be done as the number 1 priority.
> > > > > > me, me ... I know the answer :) I think (but I should not be alone) that the > > 'what' concept is "share and talk". Am I wrong ? :)
> > :p No, you're not wrong. But please excuse me for my bad english. What > is a good name to describe what I had written then?

I'm fairly sure that he didn't misunderstand you. The thing is that it
is already rather clearly defined what the protocol is supposed to do,
considering that it is for `Direct Connect'. Almost everything that is
left to define is more or less what you call `how' stuff, as far as I
can tell.

> > ps. why does my mail client (thunderbird) tries to reply directly to > you, eric, instead of the mailing list?

Most mail clients have two reply modes. You are probably trying
`Reply', not `Follow up', or whatever Thunderbird calls them. They're
called Reply and Follow up in VM, at least, and I'd guess it's about
the same thing. `Reply' only puts the sender of the mail in the `To:'
field, while Follow up does that and puts the previous `Cc:' receivers
in the `Cc:' field of the new mail. It happens all too often that I
type Reply by mistake and never realize that I never sent to the
list... =)

Fredrik