On Tuesday 23 October 2007 09:15, you wrote: > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-10-23 01:45:00]: > > > On Monday 22 October 2007 22:01, you wrote: > > > Author: nextgens > > > Date: 2007-10-22 21:01:20 +0000 (Mon, 22 Oct 2007) > > > New Revision: 15483 > > > > > > Modified: > > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestHandler.java > > > Log: > > > Simplify the logic, test for node.passOpennetRefsThroughDarknet() earlier > > on. > > > > > > Don't send anything if we don't want to help path-folding. > > > > Not sending anything is actively sabotaging path folding by causing opennet > > nodes to waste threads waiting for a message which will never come. The > > intended behaviour is to always send *something* to indicate the completion > > of the request. Normally on a pure darknet node that would simply be an > > FNPOpennetCompletedAck. > > I hope that the code is bullet-proof against that... My node has been > acting that way since the beginning :p Well, those messages will > eventually expire anyway, won't they ?
Bullet-proof against what? Not sending any ack? Yes, but it slows things down by wasting threads. > > May you add a few comments in the code about that please? It's far from > beeing obvious logic-wise as far as I'm concerned. Didn't I just do that? > > > If you want to eliminate this spurious message in the pure darknet case, > > without breaking pass-opennet-refs-over-darknet which IMHO is an important > > piece of functionality, you will have to define a way for nodes to declare at > > connection time that they are not interested in opennet in any way > > whatsoever. Then we can safely not send an ack to such nodes if they > > are !wantsOpennetRefs(). > > Ok, it got one slot on my TODO. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20071023/dca966dd/attachment.pgp>
