Sorry for the delay, been busy. Please fight me wherever I am wrong, inform me wherever I am misunderstanding etc.
On Monday 24 May 2010 12:09:36 Martin Nyhus wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 17:17:41 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Did you have any specific structural changes you were thinking of as > > a first step? > > Except moving the FNP code, the only structural change I can think of > right now is moving the block transfer code, but as you mention, it > should wait until after the packet format is done. I haven't looked > closely at the crypto code yet, so I might need to do something there. Well can you give me a reasonable idea of what FNP code you are proposing to move? I am concerned that we not rewrite stuff unnecessarily? > > > However, it will be necessary to keep support for old style bulk > > transfers for quite some time because it is needed for Update Over > > Mandatory to continue to work. > > Hopefully the bulk transfer code will only be needed if we use > FNP, and as long as the new packet format isn't merged before moving > bulk transfer I think it should work out. > Well yeah, when we have the new FNP, we will likely have a different big file transfer mechanism. But we'll need to support the old one for some time after that.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
