[lcdproc] FW: version 0.4/0.5?

[Andre Breiler]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, William W. Ferrell wrote:

> --- andreb@rd.bbc.co.uk's mailer spewed these beefy chunks ---
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, David Glaude wrote:
> > 
> > But how do you deal with "backports" from 0.5 to 0.4 after the final 0.4
> > (0.4-post1 ?) ?
> 
> I doubt it'll be worth the effort. If we actually pull this off
> properly, v0.5 will be a much-desired upgrade; I'd like it to *fully*
> support everything v0.4 did then add some more and still be easier to
> develop for. v0.4 will hopefully become an unsupported old version.

Sure /if/ it's released & stable. But until this point we should support
0.4 (bugfixes only ?).
And all updates/fixes should be shown in the version number.
But if you do a 0.4 final then here is no space for this (easiest
fix: label lcdproc0.5 as lcdprocNG and if it's released then assign a
version to it)

> Can you elaborate a bit on that MtxOrb bug?

See Message-Id: <Pine.GSU.4.21.0103221731100.14953-400000@inet14>

> Also (if you've already given me this, it's okay to smack me while I get
> organized again :) can you send along your sourceforge ID so I can add
> you as a developer, at least to track these todos.

Ok: 179561 (note: same name diffrent email addr)

> I'm still sorting out the protocol changes. I started a document about
> this several months ago I need to dig up -- there were some decent ideas
> in there.

Is here any documention about 0.5 available ?

> From what I recall, we decided to go with a human-readable (or at least
> human-decipherable :) protocol, in the clear (for now, adding support
> for SSL later) communication except for the initial authentication
> (shared secret unless somebody seriously feels like implementing
> public/private key for this monster :).

I think SSL is no must because you can use programs like sslwrap/stunnel.
Plain text proto is fine.
 
> The current protocol is totally unacceptable. The server needs to be

Yes, I agree with you :)

> able to transmit precise display capabilities to the clients, be more
> "informative" for inquisitive clients (what are you running on? What
> version are you? What options are you running with? How many displays

Some usefull error codes (like the one in FTP/SMTP/HTTP ...) and 
command ids (to track which response belongs to which command) would be
nice.

> have you got?), and so on. Thus, it won't be backwards compatible at all
> with the current protocol. Clients will need to be updated to deal with
> it. Some may require rewriting. Too early to tell for now.

Ok, this should be no problem.

Bye Andre'
-- 
Andre' Breiler                       |   Tel: +44 1737 839532
BBC Internet Services                | Email: andre.breiler@rd.bbc.co.uk 
Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK  |   URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
Mail me.  Don't phone if possible. And use a Subject line.



-----------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank message to
lcdproc-unsubscribe@lists.omnipotent.net