[Devel] MI protocol enhancement

Dan Pascu dan at ag-projects.com
Tue Nov 28 12:33:58 CET 2006

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.


More information about the Devel mailing list