On Sunday 30 May 2010 21:57:51 Martin Nyhus wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:56:29 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > 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: > > > 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? > > There isn't a whole lot that has to be moved, and it should be fairly > easy to do so. What I would like to move is sendAsync(), the message > queue, requeueMessageItems(), maybeSendPacket() and some small methods. > Basically something like [0], but with proper synchronization etc. IMHO > it should be possible to do all of this while only rewriting minor > pieces.
The message queue is already a separate class. I really don't understand why e.g. sendAsync needs to be different for different low-level transport implementations however. We will still use PacketSender, we will still use message queues, what's the big difference? Similarly with maybeSendPacket - the implementation is in the message queue class anyway isn't it iirc? > > [0] > http://github.com/zidel/fred-staging/commit/42ea5e9d700c21a2e2f3627dc6fefc13c3d1be67 > Okay, this is a sensible refactoring. Go for it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
