On Friday 01 August 2003 11:19 pm, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > On Friday 01 August 2003 07:30 pm, Todd Walton wrote: > > > A: Have the insertion utilities archive and compress by zipping. Have > > > Fred compress by zipping. Yields good compression. Requires no major > > > changes to Fred. Requires no changes to FProxy. [snip] > > > > > > OK, does that some things up? Now everyone vote and end this infernal > > > thread. > > > > I vote for D: Scrap the idea. > > > > Let clients do it if they wish, and let clients deal with the problems > > if they wish. The benefits to Freenet won't be much. The amount of > > compressible content in Freenet is surely not that great. > > Then why not A? That does yeald improvement, and is very non invasive.
D. This is unnecessary complexity if its to be woven into Fred. Expecting *all* client writers to somehow implement this scheme without first standardizing and perhaps even adding to the FCP spec is unreasonable (fcptools may insert content, but another client program may retrieve it besides fproxy). We can't insulate ourselves from basic ignorance if someone is inserting highly compressable content into Freenet uncompressed. And being that the main obstacle to Freenet is routing, this seems off target. -- Jay Oliveri "In the land of the blind, GnuPG ID: 0x5AA5DD54 the one-eyed man is king." FCPTools Maintainer www.sf.net/users/joliveri _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
