On 15 Oct 2006, at 16:14, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:

* Dave Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-15 20:57:57]:

On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: nextgens
Date: 2006-10-14 11:57:08 +0000 (Sat, 14 Oct 2006)
New Revision: 10661

Modified:
   trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/DarknetConnectionsToadlet.java
Log:
Small hack on fproxy to deny node removal if there isn't one week of 
inactivity.

Is there a particular reason for this? Surely if a user is removing an active 
node, they're doing it for a reason. This strikes me as very patronising.

Fighting against network churn... I'm not sure a big warning would be
efficient enough :|

Maybe I should even do a step forward : remove the "disable"
feature and let only BurstOnly and ListenOnly.

This isn't a good idea, I agree with Dave Baker, it is patronizing, and reminiscent of the kind of attitude that leads to things like DRM.  If a user decides that they want to remove a connection, it isn't our business to tell them they can't.

Anyway, connection churn is much more likely to be due to nodes going up and then going down permanently, than people removing peers prematurely.

If I could state a general principal here, remember that our software is just a guest on the user's computer.  If they tell it to do something, it should do it.  We have no business second guessing users.

Ian.

Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc.
phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to