[Devel] MI protocol enhancement

[Dan Pascu]

On Tuesday 28 November 2006 13:20, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> the issues you are referring are not directly related to the MI
> interface, but to the modules implementing transports for it (like
> fifo, unixsock, xmlrpc, etc).

Well, it was a generic and shorthand way of addressing them.

>
> so, the syntax part is managed by the transport modules and can be
> different from transport to transport.
>
> as yo said, for FIFO it is not an issue as it a stream like connection
> - you read until the other party closes the connection.

it's not an issue for STREAM like connectins that close after the command, 
but it is if they don't.

>
> we will consider this aspects when we will develop new module,
> especially the one oriented on DATAGRAM communication.

I think this is important to do for STREAM connections as well. What if I 
don't want to close the stream connection after a request, but want to 
keep it open and issue multiple commands on it?

Besides it won't hurt to have 2 LF at the end of the message, no matter 
what kind of transport they use, it'll only make the messaging clearer 
and more consistent across all MI implementations.

-- 
Dan