On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daignière <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a >> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't >> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps. > > Heh, java has a frozen API... last time I checked ours is neither frozen nor > even versioned!
How is that relevant to this discussion? > [snip.] >> > If you did want to push Freenet-the-service, rather than >> > Freenet-the-program, I'd suggest that for the late .7 and early .8 you >> > continue the focus on making the install simpler.. For example, the >> > project could create a Freenet-for-embedded.zip, which defaults to >> > opennet only, auto-detects it's IP, and joins the network when the .jar >> > is run, rather than asking the user any questions. >> >> Well, I've been describing Freenet as a platform since around 1999 - >> there is nothing new about this. I think we do need to do some work >> to make Freenet more easily embedded, possibly as you suggest. >> > > What about fproxy; shall it be separated from fred too ? I think it > should be a plugin to the node. Fproxy is the means through which the node is configured, so it doesn't make sense to separate it. Technically the freenet->http aspect of fproxy is a client app, but since its already tightly integrated, and since it is serves as a "gateway" to Freenet, it makes sense to keep it part of Freenet. Ian. -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: +1 512 422 3588 Skype: sanity _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
