Will Dye <willdye at dsndata.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:42:18 BST, Theodore Hong writes:
> > It feels like a bad design choice to arbitrarily set a fixed upper
> > limit to the size of data. ("No one will ever need more than 640K of
> > memory...") Why do we need one?
>
> As Oskar stated in his original message on the subject, fields and
> messages are currently read directly into memory. This means you can
> probably crash a Freenet node just by sending it several megs of data
> without a newline.
Sorry, I meant for the trailing field.
> > If you don't have enough temporary space to store a reply, can't we
> > fall back to streaming it directly from the in-socket to the
> > out-socket (the way we did in the beginning) instead of writing it
> > to disk?
>
> As Oskar stated in his original message on the subject, that is
> possible, but complex. Time and again I've emerged from a feeping
> creatures nightmare project, wanting to brand the phrase "stabilize
> basic code before adding new features" on my fingers.
No, it wouldn't be a new feature, it would be going back to an old
feature. =) but I'll accept Oskar's argument for that.
theo
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
