Re: PING/PONG

[Christophe Kalt <kalt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 08, Kaspar Landsberg wrote:
| Then, again, ircd should be fully RFC compliant, which it is not. Why is
| RFC (the RFC being really outdated as everyone knows) complicancy
| sometimes so important to you and sometimes not at all?

Again, the RFC is not as outdated as you like to think it
is, especially concerning the client-server protocol.

Of course it is impossible to be fully compliant because the
protocol has evolved.  However, we should try as hard as we
can to remain as close as possible to the RFC because it is
the closest thing we have to a standard, and it is what the
world sees, what the world goes to when implementing a new
server or client.

| I need it because i need it. It´s for sequencing the whole thing if you
| really need to know that.
| 
| The point is: I want the server to return arguments i provided. You don´t
| have to know why. And there used to be an elegant way to do it which does
| not exist anymore in the current implementation. And the only reason for
| which it seems to have been removed is RFC compliancy whereas the current
| implementation violates the RFC in other ways? Common!

If you want your client to talk to itself, the don't use
PING/PONG.  Use NOTICE.
m_p{i,o}ng were changed so long ago I can't find any trace
of it in the various chnage logs, and it was not changed to
follow the RFC.  It was FIXED.

| | | If not, then please get the server back to the traditionnal behavior.
| | 
| | NO.
| 
| I think (and i´m not the only one) it´s unreasonable to break the old
| PING/PONG behavior. And if you really insist on keeping it the way it is
| then clients will have to get their arguments returned in some other,
| uglier and more expansive way.

the "new" behaviour might be close to have existed for as long
as the "old" one.