What would you change if you could?

Here is the sub forum used for talking about ideas, implementations and suggestions or typical guidelines.

Further info on extension or the protocol is found at our Wiki
Post Reply
Pretorian
Site Admin
Posts: 214
Joined: 21 Jul 2009, 10:21

What would you change if you could?

Post by Pretorian » 05 Feb 2011, 17:49

What would you change with ADC if you could, assuming you didn't need to care about current implementations och what is or isn't in the current spec?

Would you add a new feature? Remove one? Move an extension to the base spec?

What I'd (potentially) change (in no particular order);
•Add feature versioning
•separate app name from version
•add 'TS' in MSG to BASE
•add hash set (for directories etc)
•add SEGA to BASE (withholding the FCC of course)
•specify that 'adc' is an acronym for 'advanced direct connect'
•possibly separate chat functionality from file sharing in BASE
•'hidden' in the CT field in BASE
•possibly adding NAT-T to BASE
•add referrer in BASE for C-C
•allow other fields in SUP
•mandate that fields that signal FCCs shall use one convention for separator and that multiple FCCs are valid
•possibly clarify padding, endian etc for Base32, network order etc
•possibly clarify the message syntax for some types of parsers
•add invalid feature to STA
•allow for more error codes (break up severity and error code)
•add failover hubaddresses to BASE
•add free slots to BASE
•add locale field to BASE
•require that all clients send I4/I6
•possibly specify a common convention for hash field names 
•possibly add an additional CT enumeration value for chat group

Toast

Re: What would you change if you could?

Post by Toast » 06 Feb 2011, 14:03

  • Add feature versioning
  • add hash set (for directories etc)
  • specify that 'adc' is an acronym for 'advanced direct connect'
  • 'hidden' in the CT field in BASE
  • possibly adding NAT-T to BASE
  • add referrer in BASE for C-C
  • add invalid feature to STA
  • allow for more error codes (break up severity and error code)
  • require that all clients send I4/I6

adrian_007
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 06 Jan 2008, 13:00

Re: What would you change if you could?

Post by adrian_007 » 06 Feb 2011, 22:28

basically, different versioning...
referrer is a good thing, but it doesn't work very well (see case when one phisical hub has couple of addresses and has port forwarding - not a good hint... i'd suggest some kind of hub hash, when hub is recognized by hash, not an address)

klondike
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Nov 2010, 13:06

Re: What would you change if you could?

Post by klondike » 17 Feb 2011, 16:11

Well I still would like a better MAC digest for UDP messages, other than that I have no major complaints on the protocol.

Are you planning on making a rewrite or something?

Pretorian
Site Admin
Posts: 214
Joined: 21 Jul 2009, 10:21

Re: What would you change if you could?

Post by Pretorian » 20 Feb 2011, 21:02

klondike wrote:Are you planning on making a rewrite or something?
Not really. It's just useful to know what people would do if they wouldn't be constrained with compatibility (e.g. by removing a bunch of stuff for simplicity etc).

andyhhp
Junior Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 18 Feb 2010, 17:44
Location: England

Re: What would you change if you could?

Post by andyhhp » 22 Feb 2011, 18:48

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility to have ADC/2.0 non backward compatible?

There are a few issues with the protocol at the moment which make it difficult to use in places, specifically with respect to versioning, ambiguities in the grammar and password negociation.

It seems to me that a fairly compatible version 2 could be made which lifts these restrictions with minimal overhead to the programmers, but leaves behind the baggage holding it back.

Just a thought,

~Andyhhp

Trevis
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 03 Jan 2015, 07:21

Re: What would you change if you could?

Post by Trevis » 03 Jan 2015, 07:22

Happy new year and marry chrimiss

Post Reply