Hi, [snippage - whole at bottom] >Nah, not much good. >What do you do if you want to put an application on top of freenet ? >like for example usenet over freenet ? The "application" part should >certainly be kept unused for now for such future usages. >
An application - those things that talk to freenetlib - should sit on top of the freenet protocol. Freenet should not be telling applications what the application's data is, the applications should just figure it out. You can encode virtually any protocol treating freenet as just a data-dictionary (a set of key-data pairs). I hope shortly to be demonstrating an encoding system that allows html reading and an interactive BBS sitting directly on top of freenet protocol. But that's just one example. For maximum flexibility, there should be unlimited range of possible applications using freenet protocol, so specifying the application type in the header would be a mistake. It would imply an extra maintenance and centralization headache, be unnecessary or both. (Java - what version of java? - etc.). A separate usenet application could just scan the keys starting with Usenet+datestring+0, then Usenet+datestring+0, and going as far as posters had added sequential values. I strongly agree with the general sentiment of making freenet a black box with as few in-arrows and out-arrows as possible. This actually makes it more extensible since then applications and transports can put on the top and bottom knowing very little about the basic item. **** Remember, a key thing is that an application on top of freenet always has to be ready to toss-out garbage values anyway - the whole freenet model is based on the idea that garbage can/will be inserted at various points and that application will have filter it out (why it would be very useful to be able to shut-off easily the transmission of a single document). So no matter what, each application will have to parse a document to see if they are really getting what they want - so giving a 'hint' will essentially have no value here. We wouldn't get any increase in functionality even if we gave the application access a database with arbitrary fields and subfields - after all, any set of database value could mapped to the basic freenet data model by setting a document with the value of field1.field2 at the key "field1.field2" Joe At 09:09 AM 5/15/2000 +0000, you wrote: > >Theodore Hong wrote: >> >> >> If I remember my ISO model correctly, it should be: >> >> Application Freenet protocol >> Presentation Encryption, serialization >> Session unused >> Transport TCP >> Network IP >> Datalink don't care >> Physical ... >> >> theo >> >Nah, not much good. >What do you do if you want to put an application on top of freenet ? >like for example usenet over freenet ? The "application" part should >certainly be kept unused for now for such future usages. > >CU, > Philipp > >_______________________________________________ >Freenet-dev mailing list >Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net >http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > > _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
