FCP - yet another Freenet TLA - ho hum. So I was thinking about this, and about the debate over whether MSKs and redirects should be supported in the FCP code in the node, or in the client. I can see both sides of the argument, redirects and MSKs are not nescessarily applicable to all clients, even if they have proved pretty darn useful in the clients we have implemented to-date.
OTOH, the whole point of FCP is to minimise the effort in implementing clients in different languages. From this perspective it makes little sense to force 99% of client writers to reimplement somewhat complex functionality, increasing the probability of incompatabilities, and discourging people from writing clients at-all. If you are one of those that is philosophically opposed to this, perhaps it might help if we considered FCP as part of the EOF project (although this is little more than semantics). Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010226/a7634fde/attachment.pgp>
