In an ideal world.....
Say there was a protocol like in bencode or xml that would transcribe the client list of :
loaded torrents
loaded magnets
downloaded files
download folder paths
file locations
.torrent locations
percentage completion
added date
completion date
labels
hash fails
(etc?)
In an ideal world.... one would load this file into any other client and the show would continue without much interruption.
For comparison, some web browsers have means of importing passwords and bookmarks from other browsers this requires the Opera to understand the Firefox bookmarks, it works but it is really a kind of undesirable hacking. Likewise a good RSS reader can export OPML files.
It isn't an ideal world of course, the protocol wouldn't have to include everything on the list. In
utorrent we do already have the option to ctrl+a > right click > copy magnet uri's
Not a perfect solution but it does work to some extend.
The thing addressed that worries me is the populist nature by which we chose our software. Every developer would wish it was the features that made some one chose their bittorrent client. In reality we know how the client we use works and setting up a new client is so much work we really don't have a clue which is the superior product. It is just way to much work to objectively compare one with another.
Of course there is the excuse of vendor lock in but that isn't really a good excuse is it?
Regards,
Discuss:
Client state protocol - Forums - UTorrent