Would it help if I implemented the change immediately?

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:14:58PM +0000, toad wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:17:35AM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> > You don't want to understand me.
> > 
> > My point is that I want a clear design from you. I want that any
> > client application is able to check if the key must be requested with
> > or without the filename. 
> 
> Easy. If it has a filename, it must be requested with the filename. If
> it doesn't, it must be requested without a filename.
> 
> Right now you are still able to add arbitrary path elements, but this
> will not be the case forever. The problem is that making the change will
> break back compatibility; apps must pick up the new error
> TOO_MANY_METASTRINGS and drop a path element and retry, if they expect
> to be fed old keys.
> 
> > And I want that you develop a complete
> > concept (maybe breaking compatability) and that you say: starting on
> > xx/yy its like this.
> > 
> > Now you implement something of this and something of that, without a
> > clear concept.
> 
> Complete concept is above. The problem is I don't really want to break
> compatibility instantly.
> > 
> > E.g.
> > >At the moment, a key with a superfluous filename will be requested
> > >successfully.
> > Ah. Ok. And later this wont work? How should I implement my client
> > application? What will you say tomorrow?
> 
> Later on it won't work. The node will return an error indicating too
> many path components. Specifically, it will return error 11,
> TOO_MANY_PATH_COMPONENTS (was HAS_MORE_METASTRINGS in older source),
> described now as "Too many path components" in the short form. The node
> will include the URI with the superfluous path components chopped off in
> the error message. The caller is expected to try the new URI, and if it
> works, to update its copy of the URI to point to the new URI (just like
> with an HTTP Permanent Redirect; just like with USKs).
> > 
> > What I meant is that the most compatible way (for client applications)
> > would be to indicate the "format" of a CHK key (request with/without
> > filename) in the CHK key itself, but not in its extension. 
> 
> In the long term, all clients will simply request the key as-is. A
> compatibility kludge which can be implemented in clients is to support
> the above redirection mechanism.
> 
> > The AAEC--8
> > (OR WHATEVER) was just an idea, because I don't not if this is even
> > possible.
> > If it is not possible then just write that it is not possible to
> > change the CHK key format to indicate what we want.
> 
> It would be possible to indicate it in the URI, however I am not sure
> why you would want to. Adding bogus filenames is deprecated. And any
> such mechanism would be fairly dubious complexity, as there may be more
> than one level of extra filenames.
> > 
> > With your current "design" I don't really know how to implement a
> > working solution into Frost. Currently the only solution seems to
> > request the CHK with and without a filename, one after the other,
> > until the download is successful...
> 
> Request the CHK with the filename. If the node returns an error
> indicating a new URI, update the CHK to point to that URI, and try
> again.
> > 
> > On 10/31/06, toad <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > >On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:33:58PM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> > >> On 10/31/06, toad <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > >> >On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:34:23PM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com 
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >> Why do you add this level of complication? Why could'nt a key with
> > >> >> filename just be recognizable, e.g. if you change the tralining part
> > >> >> "AAEC--8" into something different?
> > >> >> If it breaks compatability now this is no problem because its breaken
> > >> >> already...
> > >> >
> > >> >At the moment, a key with a superfluous filename will be requested
> > >> >successfully.
> > >> >
> > >> >The problem is that at the moment freenet URIs don't behave like normal
> > >> >URIs. You can add an arbitrary number of extra path elements (slash
> > >> >followed by string not including slash), and it still work. Which means
> > >> >we can't compare them.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Some way to add an indication to the keys text representation would be
> > >> >> very helpful.
> > >> >
> > >> >Perhaps. What would you suggest?
> > >> >
> > >> >CHK at blah,blah,blah,filename.ext
> > >> >CHK at blah,blah,blah?filename=filename.ext
> > >>
> > >> I vote for a clear solution that indicates the different key types
> > >> (with/without filename) in the chk key itself, instead of adding
> > >> another incompatible new extension.
> > >>
> > >> As I said the (currently) fix extension AAEC--8 seems to be a good
> > >> choice for me, why not simply make it AAEC--9 or whatever for keys
> > >> WITH filenames? This allows applications to clearly differentiate the
> > >> different key types and how to handle them.
> > >
> > >Because AAEC--9 actually means something? It specifies the cipher type
> > >and so on.
> > >
> > >I'm not sure what exactly you want here.
> > >
> > >
> > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
> > >
> > >iD8DBQFFR8RHA9rUluQ9pFARArA5AJ4o8h7iBlPMSSrtCIy7xIG4I+1ClACgnVI1
> > >GO+LjX6IqH9SDtOyKz0lQ1Q=
> > >=37DW
> > >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Tech mailing list
> > >Tech at freenetproject.org
> > >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tech mailing list
> > Tech at freenetproject.org
> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
> > 



> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20061101/8a608d83/attachment.pgp>

Reply via email to