> Yeah, this is really what I am trying to do with nfreenetd. Of > course, most people won't have to run nfreenetd (and many of these > people are going to be Windows users, so they can't use nfreenetd), > but the there are always going to be Unix/Linux speed-junkies who are > running nodes with massive datastores and large pipes.
Yeah, I think that's great. There will be people that no matter how long I lecture them, will still say "But...it's in JAVA!" so it's good to have an alternative that just says "We are fast! We are in C! We use an SQL database!" so that they will leave us other developes alone. It's important to maintain total standards compliance, though. You should never, ever change the protocol and, if possible, keep the same config file. I know, multiple implementations using the same config file? Who has ever heard of that? Well it would be a whole new world of standardization if different node writers could avoid extensions. Of course, the URL of the JDBC database and that sort of thing are specific to the implementation. That would go in a secondary, different config file. Oh, and maybe even the same command-line arguments and syntax? Maybe I am just dreaming a happy dream. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
