On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 08:43:08PM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > > This is cool. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but wouldn't it > > have been cleaner to implement this as a FCP command rather than opening > > up a new port? FCP was designed for just this kind of task, and we > > really shouldn't add a new listen-port for every new piece of > > node-client functionality. > > I don't think node ref harvesting really falls under node-client > functionality. It's a rather special purpose (even scandalous ;) > undertaking that seems better suited to a servlet than an FCP command.
I view FCP as a protocol through which the node can communicate with local clients, to ask the node to do stuff, and to obtain information from the node. It is simply cleaner to use it for these things than adding new listen ports for specific functionality. > Freenet is above all a system of network protocols that we want to > be adopted outside the world of Fred, so to that end we ought to > keep FCP as simple as possible. This is really an optional feature, it doesn't make life any more difficult for client writers, and anyone brave enough to reimplement a Freenet node could handle this with their eyes closed. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.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/20011111/d92a2b6a/attachment.pgp>
