On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 02:04:54PM -0500, Brandon wrote: > Your system should be as complicated as it needs to be to meet your known > needs. You can't realistically design for things you haven't thought of > yet.
Yes you can. You can understand that in the future you are going to do things to your code that would make you bawk at the moment. You can be kind to the future and make it so that the *framework* takes a lot. > The difference between fundamental and nifty features is that fundamental > features are added slowly and have to be supported by everyone. So it's > okay to do things like change the URI syntax to include them. How often do > they come up? In 3 years we've come up with 4 fundamental things: names, > signatures, content hashes, and date-based indexing. New fundamental > things are going to be added slowly enough and will be important enough > that we should add new key types for them. So we break the URI format everytime we think up something? And we damage experimentation because changing stuff is soo costly? > expandable key type system for this reason. In the particular case of > DBRs, they are only reasonably used with SSKs, so it makes sense to merge > them into the SSK URI format. "I can't think of anyone doing anything different at the moment so noone will ever want to do something silly" > URIs need to be kept simple. The great cosmic balance - where to strike it? Abstract vs Concrete - Battle of The Titans. Tickets $3 This isn't exactly the first round :) Maybe Rambling Sytem is too abstract - but the fixed feilds system is too concrete. AGL -- The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010405/c4fa6737/attachment.pgp>
