1. Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by Kat Feb 28, 2009
- 878 views
Remove the internet protocols from
socket.e,
in favor of
http.e,
ftp.e,
irc.e,
email.e,
etc,
etc.
Kat
2. Re: Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by Kat Feb 28, 2009
- 820 views
- Last edited Mar 01, 2009
Remove the internet protocols from
socket.e,
in favor of
http.e,
ftp.e,
irc.e,
email.e,
etc,
etc.
Kat
Ok, nevermind, i won't do it. There's been 54 views in euforum, and i brought up the suggestion on irc, but no comments, ....... so i withdraw the suggestion.
Kat
3. Re: Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Feb 28, 2009
- 785 views
- Last edited Mar 01, 2009
Ok, nevermind, i won't do it. There's been 54 views in euforum, and i brought up the suggestion on irc, but no comments, ....... so i withdraw the suggestion.
Kat,
I think that email, http, ftp, etc... would be built ontop of socket.e. You would need socket.e to complete any of the tcp/ip protocols. Further, there are hundreds of protocols. The ones mentioned are the most popular, but many, many others will depend solely on socket.e
Jeremy
4. Re: Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by Kat Feb 28, 2009
- 775 views
- Last edited Mar 01, 2009
Ok, nevermind, i won't do it. There's been 54 views in euforum, and i brought up the suggestion on irc, but no comments, ....... so i withdraw the suggestion.
Kat,
I think that email, http, ftp, etc... would be built ontop of socket.e. You would need socket.e to complete any of the tcp/ip protocols. Further, there are hundreds of protocols. The ones mentioned are the most popular, but many, many others will depend solely on socket.e
Jeremy
Socket.e should not need a new release if there was new code for doing http. If someone added MUSH interface, they'd haveto release a new sockets.e. If the protocol for a given transmission using sockets.e was not part of sockets.e, then the newprotocol.e could be worked on and distributed separately.
Remember, i worked on sockets.e.
Kat
5. Re: Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Feb 28, 2009
- 785 views
- Last edited Mar 01, 2009
Socket.e should not need a new release if there was new code for doing http. If someone added MUSH interface, they'd haveto release a new sockets.e. If the protocol for a given transmission using sockets.e was not part of sockets.e, then the newprotocol.e could be worked on and distributed separately.
Remember, i worked on sockets.e.
Yes, I do remember. What I am saying is that socket.e shouldn't go away. I am not saying add http support to socket.e, it would be good to be in it's own file, such as std/net/http.e, std/net/pop3.e, std/net/imap.e, etc... But those would include std/socket.e and use socket.e's underlying socket implementation, as it has done all the hard work of wrapping platform specific network functions.
Jeremy
6. Re: Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by gbonvehi Feb 28, 2009
- 771 views
- Last edited Mar 01, 2009
Kat, I read what you suggested before and i think it's a good suggestion, things that will change should be separated from the rest. I just didn't answer because I'm not actively involved on new version's development, probably others thought the same way as me.
Cheers,
 Guillermo
7. Re: Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Feb 28, 2009
- 790 views
- Last edited Mar 01, 2009
Remove the internet protocols from
socket.e,
in favor of
http.e,
ftp.e,
irc.e,
email.e,
etc,
etc.
Kat
Ok, nevermind, i won't do it. There's been 54 views in euforum, and i brought up the suggestion on irc, but no comments, ....... so i withdraw the suggestion.
Kat
Oh my god. Kat, you are such a drama queen.
It has been on the list for about 24-hours; not everyone lives in the internet. Most people just visit it.
Most people haven't got a clue about what socket.e does or how to use it, and thus probably don't feel qualified to respond. Hell, I do know what socket.e is about and I don't feel qualified to give a suitable answer.
Your original post seemed to imply that someone other than you would need to do the work to split it up. I read through the source code and decided that it would take me ages to do a competent job. In fact, I thought that you'd be the best person to do it.
I spoke with you on IRC within minutes of you posting the idea. I even asked you about the idea (got no response about it before I had to leave).
Anyhow, now that I've read the follow up posts, it does seem to be a good idea to have a socket.e that handles the common stuff and other files that implement various protocol, using socket.e. I would not know where to start though. Why don't you have a go at it and send the results to Jeremy to include into the respository.
8. Re: Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by Kat Feb 28, 2009
- 829 views
- Last edited Mar 01, 2009
Socket.e should not need a new release if there was new code for doing http. If someone added MUSH interface, they'd haveto release a new sockets.e. If the protocol for a given transmission using sockets.e was not part of sockets.e, then the newprotocol.e could be worked on and distributed separately.
Remember, i worked on sockets.e.
Yes, I do remember. What I am saying is that socket.e shouldn't go away. I am not saying add http support to socket.e, it would be good to be in it's own file, such as std/net/http.e, std/net/pop3.e, std/net/imap.e, etc... But those would include std/socket.e and use socket.e's underlying socket implementation, as it has done all the hard work of wrapping platform specific network functions.
Jeremy
Of course. I agree. I thought i said that.
Kat
9. Re: Eu v4.0 suggestion
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Mar 01, 2009
- 843 views
Of course. I agree. I thought i said that.
I mis-read then, I thought you wanted to remove socket.e. I understand now what you were saying, going back and reading the first message.
Jeremy
