[NNTP] LISTGROUP wording

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Andrew - Supernews said:
>  Clive> The other piece of state associated with a connection - the
>  Clive> current article number - can be determined by just going
>  Clive> "STAT".
> 
> STAT with no parameter will fail if the previously-current article was
> removed in the mean time.

Good point.

> Allowing LISTGROUP without the group name is beneficial _because a
> bunch of existing clients use it that way_, not because they want to
> know the group name but because they want the LISTGROUP output. It's
> common enough that we had to introduce a special cache for it

That's a useful data point, thanks.

> 1) LISTGROUP with no arguments should be allowed on the basis of
> substantial existing usage.

Okay, there seems to be no dissent to this.

> 2) Requiring that the 211 response to LISTGROUP-with-no-arguments be
> in the same format as for GROUP is a change to existing practice.

True.

> Clients currently do not (can not) assume anything about that
> response.  (I have no problem going along with the change if it's
> considered necessary, but it needs to be clearly understood that it
> _is_ a change.)

A change which has been in the text for a while.

> 3) allowing GROUP-with-no-arguments is just feature creep; adding it
> at this late stage is pointless since it gains nothing.

In your opinion. I agree that it gains little, but it also requires very
little effort to implement.

I'm going to make this my final word on these issues.

Russ: I'll leave you to determine the consensus on GROUP and LISTGROUP.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |