That's just saying "I'd do X", which is not useful. We're aware of those other protocols existence, I just personally don't see them having advantages over our envisioned PSYC-based design. But if you do, what would be helpful is if you could articulate *why* you think PubSubHubbub / Salmon are better than PSYC.
On 03/07/2015 11:33 PM, Tom Sparks wrote: > On 06/03/15 08:52, Christian Grothoff wrote: > <sniped> > > I just completed reading the social network paper (PYSC) > > if I was design the social network for gnunet: > > I would use Publish–subscribe system[1], a working floss example is > PubSubHubbub[2][3] > > for messages I would use the Salmon (protocol)[4][5] inside a atom feed > > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish%E2%80%93subscribe_pattern > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubSubHubbub > [3] https://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/ > [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_%28protocol%29 > [5] http://www.salmon-protocol.org/ > > > --- > tom sparks > x86? We ain't got no x86. We don't need no stinking x86! > > _______________________________________________ > GNUnet-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers > _______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
