On Tue, 23 May 2000, Brandon wrote: > > > Anyway, I've implemented the separate metadata (not attached to > > > files) insert and request. > > > > What is this good for? There is no need to keep MetaData seperate from the > > data, since the MetaData is irrelevant without the data itself. > > I thought it had been agreed that there should be a separate metadata > space which holds incriminating metadata, for the purpose of searching > Freenet without knowing what's on any particular node. I don't yet have a > searching solution, but here's an implementation of a metadata store for > the searching to operate on.
OK, but that this has to be kept in a seperate datastore in this case, since the closeness relation will be different from data routing. > > > I also have a really neat structured query parser that returns a list of > > > > And what in the world is this good for? I'm assuming this is in the client? > > I don't have an application for this at the moment, but I figure somebody > might want to use it or cannabalize some of it because it's pretty > neat. Structured searches would be nice, where you could search for > something based on a field in the metadata. But then, of course, we need a > searching methodology to use that. I think we should keep as little info as possible in the data that is searched on. Just a set of search terms and references really. Possibly a signature. > > > data insertion and retrieval, and write a file server node to keep > > > information in Freenet. > > > > Why? What is a "file server node"? > > Something which periodically requests specified items from Freenet and, if > it can't find them, inserts them, so as to always keep them around. I'm > not sure how useful this will be in practice, but people keep asking about > it and if I implement it, they will stop asking. It doesn't work. If the node keeps requesting it, chances are it will keep it alive in the node that it has a refernce to, but not in the node that is the "epi-center". This is not a node anyways, it is a client. A special purpose automated client, but a client non the less. > > AFAIK Scott already fixed support for meta-data fields preceding the actual > > data. That is where the ContentType should go - using it is just a client > > issue. > > Yes, I'm going to work on the client classes so that they process trailing > field metadata so that the www interfaces can add ContentType trivially. That is good. The client classes need work, unfortunately I have been afraid to change them now that we have Freeloader et al depending on them. Among other things, I would like to merge the "Simpleclient" that the GUI authors wrote code with that used for a better single commandline client. -- Oskar Sandberg md98-osa at nada.kth.se _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
