Tavin Cole wrote:
>
> Freenet doesn't have to do _everything_ .. Let Freenet excel at being
> one thing: a decentralized, quasi-anonymous, efficient system for inserting
> and retrieving data by key. Then create another system -- a decentralized,
> quasi-anonymous metadata search network. Let each network become optimized
> to perform its specific purpose.
This was actually a method suggested in "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Copyright Law
after
Napster"
( http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/Napster/20010227_P2P_Copyright_White_Paper.html ) to avoid
problems.
But this begs a second question. Does the current infrastructure provided by
Freenet allow a flexible searching mechanism to be added with little effort?
If such a method can be added simply by taking advantage of the existing architecture
then it would actually be better to do both within freenet itself.
However, if the implementation of a flexible searching mechanism requires a
significant effort that utilizes little of what freenet already provides then
they should be separate.
> Incidentally, it would be possible with the 0.4 architecture and perhaps
> some modifications to support running distinct nodes of distinct P2P
> networks within the same Fred.
>
True, and if these two peices of functionality are to be implemented separately,
it would definately be user friendly to bundle the two together.
Best regards,
Martin Peck.
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
