Great suggestions. My only concern is how to deal with existing implementations?Dj_Offset wrote:Link: http://www.extatic.org/adc/adc_0.12_discussion.txt
ADC and the new clothes
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 214
- Joined: 21 Jul 2009, 10:21
Re: ADC and the new clothes
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 214
- Joined: 21 Jul 2009, 10:21
Re: ADC and the new clothes
Having thought some regarding the SUP; instead there should be a protocol version for every feature. That is;
SUP ('AD' | 'RM') feature / protocol (separator ('AD' | 'RM') feature / protocol)*
where protocol is (say) major.minor
That way we can completely control and know which version of all features everyone is using. To keep some backwards compatibilty, all features that are "1.0" can omit the protocol version.
SUP ('AD' | 'RM') feature / protocol (separator ('AD' | 'RM') feature / protocol)*
where protocol is (say) major.minor
That way we can completely control and know which version of all features everyone is using. To keep some backwards compatibilty, all features that are "1.0" can omit the protocol version.
-
- Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 15 Sep 2008, 21:48
- Location: adcs://adcs.uhub.org:1511
- Contact:
Re: ADC and the new clothes
My point exactly too, which is why i proposed it years ago when we broke the protocol after all...Pretorian wrote:Great suggestions. My only concern is how to deal with existing implementations?Dj_Offset wrote:Link: http://www.extatic.org/adc/adc_0.12_discussion.txt
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: 04 Dec 2007, 07:25
- Location: Bucharest
- Contact:
Re: ADC and the new clothes
Pretorian: The official ADC specification means BASE + official extensions ( at least that's what I ment ). And what do you think about the versioning of the protocol ? ( 1.0.1 versus 1.1 )
Just someone