From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Server protocol (was: Re: error in server-running-p on M$) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:33:33 +0100 Message-ID: References: <18729.4337.83437.732524@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1227440060 3281 80.91.229.12 (23 Nov 2008 11:34:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Ulrich Mueller" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 23 12:35:22 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L4DFH-00016Y-5Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:35:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54319 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L4DE7-00024L-D8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:34:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L4DDd-0001zE-PP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:33:38 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L4DDb-0001y9-Ju for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:33:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46049 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L4DDa-0001xn-Qt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:33:35 -0500 Original-Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.44.154]:34682) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L4DDa-0000kt-Oa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:33:34 -0500 Original-Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 34so734995yxf.66 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:33:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=GnCu3OEQxkSBXv+Raak8N99WzKvYXwuQhZ+JZdQF17A=; b=CrD4mCoS7vKFDngiEsNr+kEOMZYGtGQQx2GxlD8T4dmzb7PUW4F7XJKdj/Yg6Lnw3/ u0gL4MSO14BcKKzXk37pgkt+S3QFGf4ltRy48BYKPLSgYJ6dF2dsdasRft0VsscUNBGs 8xeRwL3xl1h+Rl8yLRo5BTOk7LOeSXLb3pDE0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=OlTwdvYdx1h9uQsS7rwMOCgePcV7e5k0QlCxra2KBg0O2FRwwt6qUWBiho7/pakPgD XcmQOJXuP4ufqmYov3pnfdmRRSHQIOetSARnRbu4NsKJws1VhWhuHcdQZUrwqSDj4Hos 8XUpGDnrPRuoiuRqJlUivx2wIXlXPdoigGvyA= Original-Received: by 10.100.119.17 with SMTP id r17mr1053824anc.130.1227440013703; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:33:33 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.100.13.13 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:33:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <18729.4337.83437.732524@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:106027 Archived-At: On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:14, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > It is incompatible already: Yes, unfortunately. The multi-tty code changed emacsclient's protocol considerably. I was talking about the user perspective. I have, for example, a bunch of code that depends on the server auth file and its relation with server-name. That would be invalidated if suddenly we switched to other kind of authentication method. Not the end of the world, but there should be clear benefits before doing that. > This makes me wonder if the client shouldn't send some token > identifying the protocol version, which would be checked by the > server. Perhaps. Juanma