On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 02:06:24AM +1000, fish wrote:
> this is a patch which almost does the containers stuff flamewared above.  
> specifically, it does /key//file.jar///index.html like stuff.  
> 
> It doesn't do two important things yet, and hence shouldn't be commited yet -
> it's presented here as an exercise in asking what the concensus was on these two
> things:
> 
> a) caching - seeking through the jar for 100+ files is going to be teh pains.
>    it's of course fast on my test sites, but they're all small.
> 
> b) metadata - how should this be specified in this scenario?  should there be
>    file.metadata files in the jar?  should it be in the manifest of the upstream 
>    key (i consider this a bad way of doing thigns, btw, but it would be faster)?
>    is it enough just to have freenet work it out from the extension in this case?
>    (no, it's actually not).  Is there another way that I havn't through of?
>    (yes :-p)

Just do it with the metadata. The zip manifest file will have metadata,
the metadata will have a new kind of redirect inside it. And where is
the metadata spec again? :)
>   
> Attempting to actualyl use this will result in bad things, most likely.  Like
> the old release notes said, this isn't supposed to work, and if it does, then
> ergo it isn't doing what it's supposed to, and hence isn't working :)


Oh, and don't implement it at the fproxy level! Implement it at the
freenet.client level.
> 
> it worked for me, but that means nothing :).
> 
>       -- fish
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to