Wladimir [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-06-16 📝 Original message:As replied on the github ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-06-16
📝 Original message:As replied on the github issue:
Personally I still think it's better to have a clear standardized "protocol
version", that implies what capabilities are supported, instead of a
capability-based system that explicitly lists them.
Capability-based systems (just look at OpenGL) tend to become horrendously
complex, as you have to take into account all possible combinations of
possible interactions, and constantly check for support of specific
features instead of just comparing a version number.
Sure, it can be necessary to distinguish between different types of nodes,
but there is no need to make it this fine-grained.
Wladimir
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Introspection/command discovery is nice, but I would prefer it to be
> immediately done in the first version exchange so no assumptions as to how
> a network is operating need to be made.
>
> I like the idea of a flat list of commands. It might make sense to have
> "meta"-commands that alias to groups of commands. i.e "original" for the
> current core subset up to (and including) "pong". The aliases could exist
> in a text definition file which is held on github or bitcoin.org/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at exmulti.com>
> To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 2:13 AM
> Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed new P2P command and response:
> getcmds, cmdlist
>
> Outside of major features advertised network-wide in nService bits,
> P2P protocol lacks a good method of enumerating minor features or
> extensions. The version number increment is coarse-grained, and is
> not self-documenting. A simple extension which lists supported
> commands is added, as demonstrated in this pull request:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1471
>
> Another option is for verack to return this information at login,
> eliminating the need for a separate command/response.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> exMULTI, Inc.
> jgarzik at exmulti.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120616/d990c59b/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:As replied on the github issue:
Personally I still think it's better to have a clear standardized "protocol
version", that implies what capabilities are supported, instead of a
capability-based system that explicitly lists them.
Capability-based systems (just look at OpenGL) tend to become horrendously
complex, as you have to take into account all possible combinations of
possible interactions, and constantly check for support of specific
features instead of just comparing a version number.
Sure, it can be necessary to distinguish between different types of nodes,
but there is no need to make it this fine-grained.
Wladimir
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Amir Taaki <zgenjix at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Introspection/command discovery is nice, but I would prefer it to be
> immediately done in the first version exchange so no assumptions as to how
> a network is operating need to be made.
>
> I like the idea of a flat list of commands. It might make sense to have
> "meta"-commands that alias to groups of commands. i.e "original" for the
> current core subset up to (and including) "pong". The aliases could exist
> in a text definition file which is held on github or bitcoin.org/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at exmulti.com>
> To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 2:13 AM
> Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed new P2P command and response:
> getcmds, cmdlist
>
> Outside of major features advertised network-wide in nService bits,
> P2P protocol lacks a good method of enumerating minor features or
> extensions. The version number increment is coarse-grained, and is
> not self-documenting. A simple extension which lists supported
> commands is added, as demonstrated in this pull request:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1471
>
> Another option is for verack to return this information at login,
> eliminating the need for a separate command/response.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> exMULTI, Inc.
> jgarzik at exmulti.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120616/d990c59b/attachment.html>;