Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1S3r8I-0006qu-2f for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:44:30 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1S3r8H-0003Uc-9u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:44:30 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-164-217.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.164.217]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0B09560539 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 15:44:21 +0000 (UTC) To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: "Luke-Jr" Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:44:15 -0500 X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201203031044.17005.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1S3r8H-0003Uc-9u Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] getmemorypool BIP process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:44:30 -0000 On Saturday, March 03, 2012 10:05:58 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: > > HTTP and JSON-RPC are a client-server model; there is no way for the > > server to make calls to the client. It's not practical to expect clients > > to run their own JSON-RPC server - many cannot listen on WAN ports at > > all. > > You're doing that thing where either you say something before you've > done adequate research, or you're being needlessly pedantic; I just > copied and pasted this from section 2.1 of the JSON-RPC spec: I wasn't aware anyone was considering JSON-RPC over anything other than HTTP. I've updated the draft to include long polling, and remove some assumptions of using HTTP for transport.