> 1) This doesn't belong in Fred's JVM. We have enough problems > undertanding/bounding fred's resource consumption as it is.
I agree - that is what plugin architectures are for. > 2) How do you plan to address QOS? I have asked this question several times > and each time it is ignored. > If you really want to do streaming you need to have a reasonable QOS > gaurantee. I don't see how you are going to get this from fred. Increasingly, streaming protocols operate over TCP - what QOS guarantee does TCP offer? Such streaming protocols address this using buffering, there is no reason why we can't do the same. > But don't call it streaming. There is no need for such pessimism. I am not going to just assume that this won't work - the early tests were encouraging. When someone tries this, and proves that it isn't viable, then we will know where we stand. If nobody even tries, how will we know? > Freenet *is not* a replacement for internet radio. It is much more > interesting than that. Again, you have no more evidence that it won't work than I do that it will. Why not encourage someone to try it so that we can all find out? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Personally I am optimistic, with Splitfiles I have been seeing overall download rates of around 30k/sec, which is more than enough for a FM quality ogg stream. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com] Latest Project http://locut.us/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ian/ _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
