Re: [REMINDER][RfC] Net_ICQ

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:26:54 +0200 Alexander Merz <alexander.merz@web.de> wrote: > No, i think this is a typical case of 'Lite' like it is intented. I do not think so. Cache_Lite is a far better example. > You can implement the provided functions, if you have http access only > - which is typical for a webserver. Every other function requires an > own port and a special protocol - a lot of overhead and requirements > if you want to check for an user state only. > > Having HTTP_ICQ and Net_ICQ results in confusion for a user. HTTP_ICQ does not represent the purpose of this package very well. As far as I see, it is the ICQ "web services" package. That has not really something with Net (which implies an idea of a protocol). But implement "only": http://www.icq.com/features/web/indicator.html. Other functions can be: http://www.icq.com/panels/doorbell/ or other web ICQ tools. Then I prefer to see something like Service_xxx or such category :) However I'm -1 for the package itself as it is, having a full class to "only" do a query is useless imho. Maybe just an example in HTTP_Client :). pierre