On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Ian Clarke wrote: > have with FNP - I simply didn't understand why you were criticising FNP > on the basis that it didn't support NAT circumvention where your > proposal doesn't support it either, it just supports outsourcing the > problem elsewhere - this is hardly a valid criticism of FNP.
What I understood jrandom to be saying was that by outsourcing the problem to the transport layer, you *can* take care of the problem there. You can implement a MOM, whose entire existence, one might say, is to overcome this very problem. If you don't outsource the problem, you can't take advantage of the MOM (as cleanly and easily). > As a follow-up - I don't think we should accept any performance > reduction just so we can standardize to something like this. I am all > for code-reuse, but not if it means reduced efficiency or functionality. Again, I understood something different. I understood the point to be that the JMS plan would *increase* functionality. That's what it was for. To make it possible to use Freenet in more situations. Make it more functional. -todd _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
