>  > For me, ADC makes sense: The simplicity of, more or less, being
>  > able to write a hub that consists of a switch statement is
>  > appealing.  So is the ability add arbitrary broadcast and directed
>  > commands.  Users want a lot of things, and all of them won't be
>  > covered by any single protocol we accept.  If a new directed
>  > command is needed (say, for client to client cctp), making its
>  > function dependent upon what (adc or dolda-connect compliant)
>  > hubsoft the clients are attached to is just plain unacceptable -
>  > it's the same situation we have now.
> > I do agree with you in a way, in that it does seem appealing in terms
> of simplicity. However, I don't think that kind of simplicity is going
> to hold, since the broadcast commands still often require some
> [...]

I forgot to mention, that given the very narrow namespace in ADC -
three characters per command, you're pretty much doomed to have
namespace clashes when people start extending it too much. And then,
broadcasting commands that have different meanings for different
clients isn't really a good thing, IMHO.

Fredrik Tolf