Re: [JDEV] misc protocol discussion

["Corbett J. Klempay" <cklempay@chimera.acm.jhu.edu>]

Sure...consistency is a good thing :)

BTW: my crypto project is due in 8.5 hours...I have some skeleton code
going...I'm in our ACM lab working on a project for my operating systems
class right now, though.  All nighters are fun :)  I'm going to shift into
Computer Integrated Surgery mode (I have a heinous project in there I have
to present this Friday), but will be able to grab someone's client code to
have an infrastructure present. (right now, there are some parts of the
certificate issuing/verifcation process which I just have commented out
because they rely on stuff which needs to be passed between the server and
client).

When I do grab a client to toy with, is there one in particular I should
work with?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corbett J. Klempay			         Quote of the Week:
http://www.acm.jhu.edu/~cklempay       "A commune is where people join 
					together to share their lack of 
					wealth."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 3 May 1999, Jeremie wrote:

> In message packets we have the type="" attribute available for
> special built-in message types, most obviously for errors.  And in a
> status packet we have the same attribute but it's on the <say></say> tag
> instead.  Would anyone be against moving it up to the status tag to be
> consistent with message, and it feels more appropriate there anyway:
>   <status type="online">
> 	<say>Groovin</say>
> 	<priority>10</priority>
>   </status>
> 
> If everyone is in agreement, I can do this before 0.6.
> 
> Jer
> 
>