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
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_
"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
note! this is _not_
a proposed protocol, just a way to make a concept of
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. :)"
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.