And because you think that you became aggressive immediately? No, if I would want to blackmail you because I'm too silly to implement your TestDDA I would have said "don't make it mandatory".
But the point is (and I feel you don't want to accept this because its your "baby") that the alternate proposal is more straight forward. Isn't it true that it is easier for clients to handle the TestDDA in one row with the original request, instead of having to resend the original request after processing the TestDDA? The TestDDA doesn't really fit into all of the other defined node requests, because it is not tied to a specific request, but a request cannot be done without TestDDA. Thats why I thought about an alternate solution. The original implementation should be kept so clients can act like Thaw: just sending TestDDA before each request to get the authorization for DDA. This way Thaw doesn't have to handle TestDDA during the request... Btw: checking the wiki I didn't found any clue what is send from the node when the source directory for a ClientPUT is read only and the node can't create the file that the client must read. On 9/26/07, Florent Daigni?re <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-09-26 15:01:18]: > > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 23:24, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-09-25 20:22:24]: > > > > > > > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 17:07, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > My point is not to change the principles of the TestDDA > > > > > implementation. The proposal describes a different way of > > > > > implementation that fits for stateless clients. The current > > > > > implementation requires that you send out-of-order testdda requests if > > > > > the node sends an error, and then the client have to resend the > > > > > original request. The proposal ties the testdda to the initiating > > > > > request, and the node remembers the request until the testdda is > > > > > finished. > > > > > > > > The basic principle here seems sound. Making clients' life a bit easier > > > > is > > > > generally a good thing. Nextgens? > > > > > > Send a patch or fill in a ticket on the BTS. We discussed it 6 months ago > > > > > (http://archives.freenetproject.org/message/20070414.083225.647d5e15.en.html) > > > suggestions would have been welcome then but aren't anymore . I ended up > > > implementing what we agreed on and have no plan to spend any time > > > on that in the near future. By the way if you really want to make a > > > basic, simple client I suggest you compute the FileHash and send it > > > everytime. > > > > I wasn't asking you to implement it, merely for your opinion on the idea. I > > will file a bug. > > Well that's what I understood ... If frost doesn't support TestDDA we > are screwed since it's mandatory. > > NextGen$ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFG+ncsU/Z/dHFfxtcRAuyqAKDMywqBjD8vBXGpjPHVndPv7+wdgwCgx9l+ > 3qYxt5ZkiA15D1xUlnviMlI= > =UOlf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -- __________________________________________________ GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A) Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de Fingerprint: 477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A __________________________________________________
