* Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-26 15:01:18]: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:24, Florent Daignière wrote: > > * Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-25 20:22:24]: > > > > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 17:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > My point is not to change the principles of the TestDDA > > > > implementation. The proposal describes a different way of > > > > implementation that fits for stateless clients. The current > > > > implementation requires that you send out-of-order testdda requests if > > > > the node sends an error, and then the client have to resend the > > > > original request. The proposal ties the testdda to the initiating > > > > request, and the node remembers the request until the testdda is > > > > finished. > > > > > > The basic principle here seems sound. Making clients' life a bit easier > > > is > > > generally a good thing. Nextgens? > > > > Send a patch or fill in a ticket on the BTS. We discussed it 6 months ago > > > (http://archives.freenetproject.org/message/20070414.083225.647d5e15.en.html) > > suggestions would have been welcome then but aren't anymore . I ended up > > implementing what we agreed on and have no plan to spend any time > > on that in the near future. By the way if you really want to make a > > basic, simple client I suggest you compute the FileHash and send it > > everytime. > > I wasn't asking you to implement it, merely for your opinion on the idea. I > will file a bug.
Well that's what I understood ... If frost doesn't support TestDDA we are screwed since it's mandatory. NextGen$
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
