Oskar Sandberg wrote: >Rudimentary implementations of at least the first two would not >necessarily be that difficult, though I guess it would take someone who >knows his way around the code decently - which means me or Tavin, and I >do not have time until at least after the conference. > Well, Tavin is back on the case, although he is continuing to keep a low profile. He may be able to work on these within the next two weeks, but we shouldn't delay the release if he can't.
>It's doubtful whether load balancing could be made backwards compatible >- it depends on whether unknown fields are preserved in the StoreData >message at the moment, which they should be, but well... > Perhaps the best interim solution is to ensure that they are preserved to ensure future backward compatability. >My experience with the installation topology of software is that it >consists of a landscape of pyramids, where more knowledgeable users show >software to those below them. > Such a model certainly exists for some software, however reliance on that topology would dramatically slow adoption of Freenet software. Yes, if people could set up "My Freenet Page" websites, which include regularly updated seed-node lists, then that might be acceptable, but if each new installation requires one-on-one interaction then our adoption rate will never approach that which it could be. Ian. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
