meejah <mee...@leastauthority.com> writes: > Stepping back a little, there's two main things here: > > 1. Great Black Swamp (GBS) > 2. non-Python > > These new pieces of Haskell code are about both things, so I want to try to > draw the lines a little more clearly. > > Without GBS, a non-Python implementation first has to make a Foolscap > implementation. > While Foolscap is interesting in its own right, it doesn't have any users > beyond Tahoe and hasn't received much attention. It doesn't have an > implementation in any other language. > > The main point of GBS is to remove that prerequisite by running "the same" > Tahoe protocol (with the same privacy features) over HTTP -- on the premise > that basically every interesting language these days has an HTTP client > implementation.
Thanks. This thread is the first I heard of GBS. I completely agree that making tahoe have a protocol spec and multiple implementations is a huge positive step. > The other part, "a non-Python implementation", is essentially running with > GBS and proving that the above claims are true. > I personally would love to see "even more" implementations of GBS in other > languages. > So, I think it's exciting that we now have a subset of Tahoe working in > Haskell -- it might not be a language for everyone or _every_ system, but > it does serve the purpose well of being "a GBS implementation" and "not > Python". > Additionally, it helps prove that the GBS specifications are "good enough" > to achieve an inter-operating implementation in a new language. Agreed that regardless of opinions or where-it-runs concerns, it is a huge step forward for Tahoe to be getting a second implementation. Two implementations and a written spec is vast different from "one implementation and the code is the spec" (even if that hasn't been fair). Sorry if I sounded more negative than I should have and failed to separate "this implementation isn't something I can adopt into my world" from "regardless of portability concerns, it's a huge step forward." And, I'm glad to see separate libraries for the separate pieces. I think that kind of software separation is also helpful. _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@lists.tahoe-lafs.org https://lists.tahoe-lafs.org/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
