I'm reading all these possibilities for prefetching in freenet, but I guess I'm still not really clear what is being gained over the prefetching built into mozilla. (You are using mozilla, right?) ok, I'll grant you the first page. Mozilla won't know where to start until you point it at something. but active-links aside, the gateway page has always been the one thing thats very quick to load. Pushing the prefetching work out to the client means that it's in the customers hands, and is adjusted/customized to their own preferences and bandwidth. (Possibly before they even download freenet.) It also means not having to re-invent the wheel, detect modems, or deal with weird interactions of having multiple prefetching mechinisms in place at the same time. (And end users WILL use mozilla's prefetching, whether intentionally, or because someone makes it a default in a future release.) If you're really worried that your bookmarks will fall out of the system and you also really don't want to point you browser at that page, then there are other ways to go about that which don't require extra code in the freenet node. So I'm wondering if there is really a big enough advantage to building this in? In all fairness, I have precaching turned off on my mozilla, so it may have shortcomings that can be addressed by a freenet specific implementation, I'm just asking what those would be.
-michael "Colin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, a nice feature might be the ability to specify a number of > layers in to spider/crawl/preload. Ie, it will load all of your > (user-settable) bookmarks, then X links deep. > There would need to be an option to disable pre-fetching the bookmarked > pages anyway, so this could just be an extension (levels, rather than a > binary yes/no) > > Colin _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
