* Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-23 17:12:07]: > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 09:15, you wrote: > > * Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-23 01:45:00]: > > > > > On Monday 22 October 2007 22:01, you wrote: > > > > Author: nextgens > > > > Date: 2007-10-22 21:01:20 +0000 (Mon, 22 Oct 2007) > > > > New Revision: 15483 > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java > > > > Log: > > > > Simplify the logic, test for node.passOpennetRefsThroughDarknet() > earlier > > > on. > > > > > > > > Don't send anything if we don't want to help path-folding. > > > > > > Not sending anything is actively sabotaging path folding by causing > opennet > > > nodes to waste threads waiting for a message which will never come. The > > > intended behaviour is to always send *something* to indicate the > completion > > > of the request. Normally on a pure darknet node that would simply be an > > > FNPOpennetCompletedAck. > > > > I hope that the code is bullet-proof against that... My node has been > > acting that way since the beginning :p Well, those messages will > > eventually expire anyway, won't they ? > > Bullet-proof against what? Not sending any ack? Yes, but it slows things down > by wasting threads. > > > > May you add a few comments in the code about that please? It's far from > > beeing obvious logic-wise as far as I'm concerned. > > Didn't I just do that?
Ok, cool then :) NextGen$
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
