On Monday 04 August 2003 11:07 pm, Todd Walton wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Jay Oliveri wrote: > > 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). > > It's one or the other. Either client writers implement it, at will, and > limit the receiving audience to clients who can recognize compressed > content, or you implement it in Fred, the node, and no client has to > worry about it. This isn't going into Fred, therefore it's being left to > the client. It is being discussed whether to put this in fproxy, the > Freenet Project's client software, not Fred. > > I couldn't tell if you were saying (Jay) that both ways are bad, in fred > *and* in fproxy, or if you were mixing the two together.
If the goal is to speed data transfers, then this solution is perhaps off base, since it isn't the data transfers that are slowing Freenet in general, but it's routing decisions. If the goal is to bundle site files together in 1 file to speed distribution of large Freesites, then an uncompressed .tar-like file could do the job. If I were to put this on my TODO list, it would go last at this point. -- 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
