Maybe by directory? ----- d9GkwkaB3 at KeopI7DuKVR5cMkVv6GG7mwT3X4 ----- 2006.11.15 - 05:54:38GMT -----
I like the idea of putting HTML, CSS, activelink in the same container and allowing the client to specify containers of arbitrary size and configuration for other files (such as jSite does). As for default handling in the node, I like directory based containers (one for . and one for each subdirectory thereof). Example: index.zip contains: ./index.html ./index.css ./activelink.png <auto-generated>.zip contains: ./banner.jpg ./background.jpg vacation.zip contains: ./vacation/NiagaraFalls.jpg ./vacation/StatueOfLiberty.jpg ./vacation/GrandCanyon.jpg ./vacation/index.html conference.zip contains: ./conference/ConferenceLogo.jpg ./conference/Dinner.jpg ./conference/Group.jpg ./conference/index.html The name of <auto-generated>.zip could be generated automatically (such that it doesn't match any other container files) and stored in the manifest. -- Automatic node reference harvest script: USK at F9EoyGguydolQ6wW0vrfL0en0O05nsxzxfHRBYHkT5Q,c~rEubYQfgJD1E8OxJizGkyAWbkusQx27YsQbOineDg,AQABAAE/auto-refs/2 node ref: http://dark-code.bulix.org/o0ur55-15691?raw --- On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:19:27PM +0000, toad wrote: > What do we want the default heuristics to be for containers? > > Presently, we have: > Any file below 64kB is considered for inclusion in a container. > Only one container will be inserted per freesite. > It is allowed to grow up to 2MB, then files are rejected and inserted > separately. > > Obviously this sucks: > - An activelink will pull the whole 2MB container. This means indexes > can take a very long time to load! > - Unused sites are supposed to fall out of freenet; activelinks subvert > this, but maybe they should only fetch part of the site, especially > given the first point. > - Larger sites could benefit from more files being included in more > containers. And the current rules impose an arbitrary cutoff. > - Larger files may sometimes be profitably included in the archive. > > Proposed solution: > - Any freesite which fits entirely into a container of 256kB will be > inserted as a single container. > - For larger sites, if the activelink (indicated by a flag) plus the > HTML plus the CSS fits into a container of 512kB, it should be > inserted as a single container. The rest of the site may be inserted > as a single container (excluding very large files - how large?). > - For even larger sites, we try to divide it up mostly by subdirectory, > with a limit of 512kB per container. > > Obviously these heuristics can be overridden by clients, which can > specify which container each file goes into. It has also been suggested > that we offer a choice of heuristics to clients (by type, by directory > etc). > > Benefits: > - Small freesites retain the advantages of being a single container. And > benefit relative to the current situation because larger files can be > included as long as the overall site is within the limit. > - Large freesites benefit because they can still be containerised (this > can be a huge benefit). > - Indexes load faster, and the activelink only preloads the html for > most sites (so the images will fall off if they are not accessed). > > Ideas? Details? Objections? > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20061115/c6e4973c/attachment.pgp>
