It's not in the node. It's in the client code. Which can work over FCP. So you can reimplement the node without reimplementing the client code. So it's no big deal.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:57:46PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I understand where you are coming from, and at the moment I am fairly evenly > >split between considering zip vs bzip2. > > please try to stick to plain stupid zip if you have to. > not only because it's been around with the jre for some time, so we can assume it's > mostly bugfree, but mainly because i worry for 3rd party freenet nodes. > > fred, the reference freenet node implementation has some really nasty "features" > which make re-engineering of a freenet node using a different language or done by a > different person a horrible PITA and nearly > unaccomplishable! > for what i can currently see, freenet is currently a huge hack and it will get more > worse. so i expect the whole featureitis (a feature disease) to bring fred's death > because fred is currently bloating up really fast. > i fear only a mayor rewrite with judging the usefullness of every thing that wents > in will clean this mess up (until the next exisode of "all you can stuff into it") > unfortunately that will for sure break compatibility to the current network and > protocol-layers, loosing every bit of content that went into the freenet so far.... > > learn and experiment with the current codebase, invent new features, rate them and > add them to the "useful things"-list for freenet-II if they're worth it > > *sigh* > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
