Any reason not to use actual HTTP codes? I'm not aware of any major deficiency in them. Most of them won't apply to us, which is fine, they don't seem to apply to HTTP either. We can extend the scheme on our own if we find a good reason to.

That implies 16 bits, or a varint. I would avoid a string or varstring here; we already have a text field. Varint vs. 16 bits is a minor issue, and arguments can be made in both directions. I flipped a coin and got heads, so I'll say varint.

Gavin Andresen wrote:

RE: use HTTP-like status codes:

Okey dokey, I'll add a one-byte machine-readable HTTP-like status code. Unless y'all want a 32-bit status code. Or maybe a varint. Or a three-character numeric string. I really and truly don't care, but I am writing this code right now so whatever you want, decide quickly.

If anybody has strong feelings about what the reject categories should be, then please take the time to write a specific list, I can't read your mind....

--
--
Gavin Andresen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development