On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:29:21PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2001, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > For those who think that layer #2 should be a front-end to layer #1, all > > you are doing is adding unnescessary bloat. Any smart implementation of > > layer #2 will interface directly with the node, and there will be no > > incentive to use layer #1. > > I disagree. Nodes have enough to do already. Layers 2 and 3 should be > implemented as a separate program, in order to prevent duplication of > effort and incompatibilities (which will be hell for client writers). > > However, you did convince me that layer 3 makes sense. Many applicationsi
You people are yammering about layers. ' WHERE THE FUCK IS THE DEFINITION OF THESE LAYERS!!! David Schutt _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl >From - Thu May 17 17:40:01 2001 X-UIDL: 3adbdd6c00000599 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: <devl-admin at freenetproject.org> Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (postfix@[4.18.42.11]) by funky.danky.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA02466 for <danello at danky.com>; Tue, 15 May 2001 21:05:47 -0400 Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
