> The only reason I disagree here is because I don't [see] in what > case a message would be subclassed except to deal with a different > key type.
Lack of imagination is a really BAD reason to do anything. Sometimes the old farts are right, you know, and have better instincts about what will make code easier later. And anyway, it doesn't take much imagination to see what a REAL subclassed message type might be: how about one that is identical to a normal request and is routed the same way, but requests the node containing the document found (by whatever key/type) do something other than send it the usual way--like broadcasting it, or sending to a third party, marking it for later action? > Maybe. And if you can provide a convincing example, then I > agree. Otherwise, I think one way to add capabilities is nice and > convenient and elegant. Sorry, but not painting yourself into a corner wins hands down over "elegant" any day; especially since "elegant" is in the eye of the beholder. If you ask me, adding message types for this is ugly and overly complex. Keytypes are not even conceptually message types--why you insist on confusing the two baffles me. Even if it happens to make the code a little shorter or simpler, that's STILL no excuse for this fundamental design mistake. -- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
