Search found 20 matches
- 2006-12-26 21:48
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: Extending ADC's C-C with MSG
- Replies: 6
- Views: 6113
Are these new "ECM" and "ERM" commands really necessary? I don't see any complications that could arise from just using the normal CTM or RCM commands. If ECM1 (is that flagged in SUP or INF, btw.?) is flagged, MSG is supported in C-C, otherwise not. I would guess that is really all information that...
- 2006-12-21 07:25
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: Replying to searches
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3643
Remember that INF are increasing, so there might have been a I4 in a previous INF for that sid. I'm pretty sure no other INF is being sent, though. There isn't a whole lot of info flowing through a hub with two users, and if I missed it, I'd truly have to be blind (not that it'd be the first time, ...
- 2006-12-20 22:00
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: Replying to searches
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3643
Replying to searches
I was just experimenting a bit with ADC, and for that purpose, I'm running adchpp and DC++ (in VMWare), and connected manually to adchpp. I tried submitting a search with DC++, and with the data I'm seeing in my manual connection, I'm a bit perplexed about how to reply to the search with UDP, becaus...
- 2006-12-20 21:30
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: PID and CID
- Replies: 4
- Views: 39713
- 2006-12-20 07:31
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: PID and CID
- Replies: 4
- Views: 39713
PID and CID
I'm reading the ADC spec in order to implement it, and I'm just wondering: The spec doesn't appear to contain any rationale for including both a PID and a CID. I can merely guess that the purpose of the PID is for authentication -- is that correct, or is it used in other/more situations? Furthermore...
- 2006-11-14 22:58
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: adhcpp violating ADC?
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3666
Actually, it seems I was wrong. After closer investigation, it seems that telnet sends CRLF newlines (as might indeed be expected), so adchpp rightly parsed the argument as "ADBASE\r", which, of course, isn't BASE. When I tried with netcat instead, it worked fine.
Sorry for making a fuss for nothing.
Sorry for making a fuss for nothing.
- 2006-11-13 23:32
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: adhcpp violating ADC?
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3666
adhcpp violating ADC?
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that adhcpp is violating the ADC protocol, based on the following: I connect to a running instance of adchpp with telnet, and type "HSUP ADBASE<RET>", to which the hub responds with "ISTA 240 This\shub\srequires\sBASE\ssupport<RET>". I found that weird, and instead ...
- 2006-09-15 18:37
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: How to install a built adchpp
- Replies: 5
- Views: 5478
- 2006-09-14 11:28
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: Compile error in swig files on Linux
- Replies: 11
- Views: 9504
ok, many thanks.. cause it shall running on a production system i have to wait until a newer release of swig reaches debian stable or at least testing.. it's a pity.. currently 1.3.28 is the newest version there.. best regards, Mummy ;-) You know, you don't have to compile it on the same machine th...
- 2006-09-14 11:26
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: How to install a built adchpp
- Replies: 5
- Views: 5478
- 2006-09-11 13:50
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: How to install a built adchpp
- Replies: 5
- Views: 5478
How to install a built adchpp
I managed to build adchpp properly, but now I can't really figure out how to install it properly. Adchpp is the first place I ever heard of scons, so I don't really know what the equivalent command of `make install' would be with scons (`scons install' did indeed not work, and neither scons -h nor t...
- 2006-09-08 05:07
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: Compile error in swig files on Linux
- Replies: 11
- Views: 9504
- 2006-09-02 17:08
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: Compile error in swig files on Linux
- Replies: 11
- Views: 9504
- 2006-08-22 18:12
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: ADC Handshake
- Replies: 8
- Views: 8272
Because every good RFC protocol has the client speak first. Having the server speak first is kind of dumb. Not only that; having the server speak first kind of defies the whole role or client and server, in the sense that client seeks to create active connections, where servers service clients requ...
- 2006-08-16 08:56
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: ADC encryption and compression
- Replies: 3
- Views: 4197
ADC encryption and compression
I find that the ADC spec is a bit unclear about the combination of encryption and compression (either that, or I'm a bit blind). Should incoming traffic be decrypted first, and then decompressed, or should it be decompressed first, and then decrypted?
- 2006-08-16 08:54
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: SUP vs. INF SU
- Replies: 4
- Views: 4804
Thanks, I think I kind of get it. SUP is for the communication between the hub and the client (like whether the client supports compression/encryption, or whether it matters if the client receives regex searches), while INF SU is for capabilities that others in the hub may care about (like whether i...
- 2006-08-13 11:01
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: SUP vs. INF SU
- Replies: 4
- Views: 4804
SUP vs. INF SU
I just read through the ADC spec. (v0.11), and I don't understand the difference between the data sent in the SUP command and the SU parameter to the INF command. Both seem to indicate FOURCCs of supported features, so what is the difference between the two?
- 2006-08-12 16:39
- Forum: adchpp general
- Topic: Compile error in swig files on Linux
- Replies: 11
- Views: 9504
Compile error in swig files on Linux
I tried to compile the latest trunk (r20) of adchpp on Linux (gcc 3.4.6, swig 1.3.25, SCons 0.96.1, glibc 2.3.6, kernel 2.6.16), and it fails with a number of errors in swig/adchpp.i: ... swig -c++ -Wall -python -o build/debug-default/bin/python_wrap.cxx swig/python.i swig/adchpp.i:28: Error: Syntax...
- 2003-11-13 11:27
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: New protocol draft
- Replies: 8
- Views: 5720
- 2003-11-12 20:20
- Forum: Protocol Alley
- Topic: New protocol draft
- Replies: 8
- Views: 5720
New protocol draft
Is anyone up for a draft on a new protocol which isn't as braindead as the orginal DC protocol, and which can gradually take over the orginal protocol? I'm thinking something like the following features: Regexp searches and tagged searches Encryption i18n (Unicode nicks, chats and so on) A sensible ...