On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 09:51:23 PM Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> or (probably better) put it in a Bucket i.e. > >> a data field. > > > > Which storage format should I use then? > > Another SFS of course! > > > We use SFS because it allows easy implementation of clients since it is > > human readble. Do we have something similar which can be shoved into > > buckets? > > > > Could we do 1 SFS per Identity and shove multiple SFS into the Bucket? > > > > Would suck a bucket be obtainable by FCP clients which are not directly > > compiled against fred but connected via network only and written in a > > completely different language? > > You can shove a single SFS or a series of SFS's into a Bucket. Just make > sure you standardise the charset. I recommend a series of SFS's rather > than a single SFS since the current Freenet SFS code will read the whole > thing into RAM.
I've filed a bugtracker entry for using Buckets instead of SFS and putting 1 SFS per entry into the Bucket, i.e. a series of SFS as you suggested: https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=6278 Will deal with this before deploying event-notifications, and send another RFC with the changed API.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
