On Saturday 15 September 2007 19:37:21 Nick Mathewson wrote: > > Yes, but we need to think about backward compatibility! Any program > which previously worked by looking for REACHABILITY_SUCCEEDED (which > has been shipped in the stable 0.1.2.x series) would break if we split > it like this. It is not okay to change events around to break old > programs, when we can avoid this. > > There's a pretty easy fix. How about if the events become: > > "status/reachability-succeeded/or" > 0 or 1. > "status/reachability-succeeded/dir" > 0 or 1 > "status/reachability-succeeded" > "OR=" ("0"/"1") SP "DIR=" ("0"/"1") ? > > and the REACHABILITY_SUCCEEDED events remain as-is? Unless you > object, I'll rewrite the patch to do this instead. > The approach I've taken in using the events, which is probably the natural one, is to map from the action to a text (for display to the user) that may or may not be filled out with information from the arguments.Orport and dirport reachability are different enough for this approach to break down in the case of REACHABILITY_SUCCEEDED. So if no-one is using the REACHABILITY_SUCCEEDED and CHECKING_REACHABILITY events at the moment (vidalia isn't AFAICT) it might be an opportunity to make the 'action' of the two events distinct and therefore easier to process. I can live with whichever approach you prefer but just thought I would clarify my reasons for suggesting the change.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.