On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 05:53:01PM -0500, Steven Hazel wrote: > Brandon <blanu at uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes: > > > So are you saying that the CHKs for two identical files with > > differing metadata will be different? Because the point is that the > > CHKs for two identical files with differing metadata should be the > > same unless they're control documents, in which case they should be > > different, which is the fundamental problem here. > > I'm pretty sure that right now the CHK hash is generated based on the > entire payload. So long as we're doing that, it doesn't make any > sense whatsoever to generate the encryption key based on just the data > part. > > But you have a point that it would be nice to have *both* the hash and > the encryption key generated based only on the data part, and that the > only thing this messes up is control documents, since they put their > data in the metadata part. That's a lame idea anyway, so let's just > not do that. Instead of identifying control documents by their 0 data > length, let's just have a metadata header that says "this is a control > document", and put the data in the data part where it belongs. That > way, duplicate CHK control documents will be avoided just like > duplicates of everything else.
Think about the consequences of allowing two files on the network under the same CHK but with differing payloads.. whoever inserts first decides what metadata everybody is going to get forever. -- # tavin cole # if code is law, then Freenet is a crowded theater _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
