On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Daniel Drake <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/10/22 Tomeu Vizoso <[email protected]>: >> What would be more reliable in the under a tree use case: ad-hoc or >> mesh with a max of 1 hop? > > Mesh, since everyone does their own beaconing.
That's my guess too. But the hard-to-answer question is "how much more reliable"? So we can answer "is it worth the big effort"? > But they would both break our ideas of collaboration quite > significantly. IME, successful uses of under-a-tree are not using multi-hop -- at least not to any advantage. Why do you say 1-hop mesh would break significantly? > One of the biggest headaches we have to deal with, even > when we have infrastructure networks, is the bug where every XO has a > different set of neighbours on the neighbourhood view. That is true from a user PoV, but in practice it lives higher in the stack -- Salut and Telepathy in general is where the issue lies. We still have bugs there that are hard to fix. I now realize we'd forgotten about Cerebro. If anyone is going to take the hard road, it may be a viable option -- did we ever have a clear plan of what it'd take to integrate it "fully" (where 'fully' means that things "just work" at least roughly to where they do on 8.2.1). cheers, m -- [email protected] [email protected] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
