On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 04:48:55PM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote: > I find the claim that my code is incomprehensible to people smart enough to > architect Freenet, less than credible. We could, and probably will (much > later if ever,I hope) debate what you mean by "arbitrary". An arbitrary > mathematical model with arbitrary constants is, well, arbitrary. I inherited > code with just such a model. And it didn't work.
Personally, I am happy to go with "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" for the time-being. I guess what Oskar is getting at is that ultimately we should have a clearly defined goal and methodology for how the connection probabilty stuff works. The first stage of this is to define the goal - which I suppose is to create a system which can dynamically estimate how many connection attempts per-minute other nodes in the network can handle, and then limit the connection attempt to that number. This is approximately what the current code tries to do, but it is probably fair to say that it was evolved rather than designed. It may be possible, given a precice statement of the problem, to come up with an optimal solution to the problem, but it shouldn't be top of our list of priorities. 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/20020123/71df8f0b/attachment.pgp>
