#3645 closed defect (fixed)
Elaborate on the motivation for "Great Black Swamp" in the proposed specification
Reported by: | exarkun | Owned by: | GitHub <noreply@…> |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | Non-Foolscap communications |
Component: | unknown | Version: | n/a |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
Launchpad Bug: |
Description
The spec says that the goal is to "simplify the task of implementing a Tahoe-LAFS storage server" by making this possible "without a Foolscap implementation".
Add a little bit of detail here so folks don't have to be an expert in Foolscap and HTTP to see the win.
Change History (3)
comment:1 Changed at 2021-03-30T19:08:53Z by meejah
- Milestone changed from undecided to non-Foolscap communications
comment:2 Changed at 2021-04-04T20:36:34Z by GitHub <noreply@…>
- Owner set to GitHub <noreply@…>
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:3 Changed at 2021-05-02T13:45:19Z by maylee
- Milestone changed from non-Foolscap communications to Non-Foolscap communications
Milestone renamed
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
In b5f214af/trunk: