On 9/10/07, Ryan Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > first, i agree 100% with david's point that you need a use case. it's > definitely noble, sometimes worthwhile, and always fun to design general > purpose infrastructure. without at least one or two clear use cases to guide > you, though, you're effectively rudderless.
Yes you are quite right. While writing my response to David I've finally went either Chat or Distributed Content. > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Gustavo Carreno wrote: > > > This is where I need input from the community: Since searches will propagate > > in the way I've described on my first mail and will get back to the > > initiator node via fast routing, vide my rant on routing some paragraphs > > above, is this better or worse that all of the implementations you > > (community) can think of ? > > honestly, this is probably the best way that *you* can spend your time. you > have an idea, but as you've said, not much knowledge of the field. do some due > diligence and read up on the current state of the art in p2p - DHTs, flooding, > superpeer networks, gossip, NAT traversal, etc. the p2p-hackers archive has > links to survey-style papers that provide good overviews of the field. > > armed with that, you'll have a better sense of whether your idea makes sense > or not, and which direction to take it. > > -Ryan > > -- > http://snarfed.org/ > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > -- Gustavo Carreno --- http://batxman.wordpress.com < If you know Red Hat you know Red Hat, If you know Slackware you know Linux > _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
