On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:38:56 +0100 Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
> IMHO the best way to handle this is to keep a week reference to the PeerNode, > so we can display the current name of the node which sent the message, no? I have rewritten N2NTMUserAlert, DownloadFeedUserAlert and BookmarkFeedUserAlert to use weak references. Is the DarknetPeerNode only garbage collected when a darknet peer is removed or are there other cases? > Thinking particularly of 0f68ca45ef5521fc9b5672053f6c04bf80ae0c7f - why do we > need to parse it out of the SFS, don't we already know the node that sent the > message? The reason is historic. The original code for node-to-node text messages worked in that way. I have now rewriten it and removed the source and target node names from the SimpleFieldSet. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090803/60893759/attachment.pgp>
