Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:46:58AM +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > for usability reasons. Making Frost and Fproxy talk to each other a > > little bit would improve the content available via Fproxy significantly. > > This whole thing is related to a proposal a while ago for a "3rd layer" > of FCP which would support functionality for automated insertion and > retrieval of indexed files, similar to how FMB and Frost do it, but a > more generic solution. > > If we were to go down this path, we should do it right - that means > first defining this functionality in FCP as a "3rd layer", and then > thinking about how we will provide a user-interface to this in FProxy. > > Ian. >
I recall when we had the discussions about level 3 FCP before, and I was against even putting level 2 handling (splitfiles and auto redirects) into fred. A lot of time has passed since then, and I now support putting a lot more functionality into the node; interfaced through FCP. I understand that this will basically make freenet like perl; a specification whose implementation will not ever be duplicated because of the complexity of getting all the little intricacies right. (and for other reasons) I've changed my mind about level 2 (even up to FEC splitfiles right through FCP), but I don't think that we want nodes repeatedly making requests based on a single input. I just see too much traffic on the network caused by it. At least until we have reached the point that all the DNFs that would be caused by this aren't a huge load on the network. Thelema -- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raabu and Piisu GPG 1024D/36352AAB fpr:756D F615 B4F3 BFFC 02C7 84B7 D8D7 6ECE 3635 2AAB _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
