On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:19:30PM -0500, Will Dye wrote: > Oskar replied: > > As I said, the limits have to absolute and agreed throughout the > > network. Changing them is the same as a protocol change - a node that > > has different limits is the same as a node not using the same > > protocol. [...] There is no way to query those nodes for the size > > they tolerate. > > When I spoke of clients querying servers about limits, I wasn't clear. > The idea is just that if lower-level software has some kind of limit, > it's often desirable to have the GUI wrapper (on the same machine) > intercept attempts to perform operations that exceeded those limits. > For example, instead of passing back "Your insert attempt failed, here's > the error message from the server"; I'd prefer to see "Sorry, you can't > send a single terabyte-sized file on Freenet. Would you like to start > the file-splitting Wizard?". I
This is just a matter of keeping the constants orthogonal. It's a basic principal of good design. > The problem is that if we hard-code the GUI wrapper to detect the limit, > then the various wrappers may not get updated when the limit changes. > The solution is for the wrapper to somehow query for the limit, but that > means setting up a query mechanism. Much as my user-centric heart pines > for the best possible GUI, even I admit that for now we should just > intercept the error at the lowest level (where the failure occurs), and > pass a sensible message back up to the top. I don't know what sort of wrappers we are talking about. Somebody was writing a wrapper by calling the CLI clients, which I know is the Unix way (often) but in this case is vastly inferior to writing code that actually uses the java client library. I'll add a "-version" call to the cli clients that prints such information as Brandon suggested anyways. > I certainly agree that we'd like the limits to be as uniform as possible > throughout the network, especially in these early days. My boss has > spent the last few *months* working on a distributed datastore. Even > with the luxury of assuming that everything is trusted once the > connections are established, he's had problems. Nightmare, thy name is > async. I've been here for almost a year now, Ian has been working on Freenet for two (I think). I wish it was a matter of *months*. <> > > Very good point. Increasing the limit means changing the protocol, > > but decreasing it means nuking data > > Does anyone object to starting at only 10 megs then? In other > messages in this thread, people seemed to prefer 100 meg as the magic > number. I defer to the coders on the matter, but I'd sure like some > volunteers to run a couple of 100-meg tests before we commit to it. 10 megs will annoy people. > > > --Will > (not speaking for my employers) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
