On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 10:56:26PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote: > 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).
Personally I favor a compromise. Make redirect following the default but allow it to be turned off. When it is turned off just return the next step in the redirect chain to the client, perhaps also allowing them to see the metadata with the redirect. IMO we're likely to change the exact redirect methods changing so we might as well make it simple for the client to just allow the server to follow redirects and to just get the next key in the chain. -- retep at penguinpowered.com http://retep.tripod.com -------------- 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/20010227/7b7b0e79/attachment.pgp>
