If you can't come up with a unique name we can all use the global queue. Or we can have the node generate one for you - of course you'll have to store it somewhere. It's really not that hard!
Frost can call itself "Frost" (instead of "hello"). Thaw can call itself "Thaw". jSite can call itself "jSite". And so on. On Friday 30 November 2007 10:27, Juergen Urner wrote: > > If it is necessary for the project to maintain a registry of well > known names > > then we will do so, but really it's not so hard to produce a unique > Name - if > > all else fails, dd if=/dev/random bs=32 count=1 | md5sum ! > > > > Project... Freenet wide? No ;-) > > Mabe misunderstandood somehow. All I am trying to point out is that for any > name, even if consists of random bytes there is no guarantee that it is > unique. If it consists of random bytes it is highly unlikely there will be a collision. > Collisions will happen in between clients, no matter what and no problem > about > that. Not if the clients are sensible. The whole point is so that clients don't have to worry about other clients' requests. > > But a problem with the curent assumption: a client tries to reconnect, > lets send > a CloseConnectionDuplicateClientName message and close the pipe of the > former client. Changing that behaviour does not help at all if two clients happen to run at the same time. One of them will lose the connection. > > ...and the second asumption: client connects, we got some persistents > laying > around for that name. Shurely he likes us passing them all. I left some > notes > regarding this in "How to deal with orphaned persistent requests?" > [https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=1564] Normally a client will connect, see that a bunch of persistent requests have completed for it, deal with them, and remove them from the queue. > > Maybe I am overlooking something, but as far as I can see, from a > clients point > of view collisions are currenly quite hard to handle and very easily > overlooked. Collisions result from one of two scenarios: 1) The client doesn't have a unique name. This is a bug in the client. 2) Two copies of the client are run simultaneously. FCP is intended to be used by one computer, clients which care about this can further uniquify their names by e.g. adding the local username. > > Juergen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20071130/fca9739b/attachment.pgp>
