>Jan> There might be concerns that poorly written network applications will >Jan> need to depend on milestone/network because they will fail if they don't >Jan> find certain peer. > >Sebastien> You stated that the reason you're keeping milestone/network is >Sebastien> to appease applications that depend on reachability to their peers, >Sebastien> and do this by depending on milestone/network. > >No; as both of you know, English is a confusing language, hard to learn as >it is easily given to ambiguities. In this case, what I think Jan meant was >something more like: > > We need to keep milestone/network for backwards compatibility, as > certain applications may have been written to depend on the service. > (One reason for such a dependency might well be a misguided idea > that it would ensure the ability to reach certain peers.) > >In other words, we are not keeping the service because of the indirect ability >to reach peers, but because of the direct compatibility issue which would be >caused if we were to remove the service. > > > > Thank you for writing it in a better way! :-) This is exactly what I meant.
-Jan
