> And regardless of the merit of using multicast, your current implementation
> breaks the intended protocol independence of the Node. 
> 
> As it is (and unless Brandon and Ian strongly disagree with me), I would 
> rather
> you removed this code, and then you can put it back when it has been properly
> discussed and implemented.

I think Bill should be praised for his initiative in implementing both udp
and multicast while we were busy picking nits out of the protocol.

But I agree that it should go in the contrib directory until it's
sufficiently mature, integrated, useful, and modular to be part of the
main tree, especially since we're about to release another version. We
certainly don't want any new, untested code in the new release.

But I think that a udp/multicast module will be very nice and useful and
popular. It will probably be quite a bit faster. I'm not sure if it should
eventually be distributed as part of Freenet proper or as a separate
module. Certainly all of the transport mechanisms _could_ be separate
modules. I think in the end we'll probably include both TCP and UDP as
standard, for people with different tastes. SSL, modem, diskette,
etc. will probably always be separate modules.



_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev

Reply via email to