> It would have been a lot easier if you had held back on that seeing as I > warned > that I was going to be working on major changes to the RawMessage. You put me > in merging hell now :-(.
Well, I wouldn't call it merging hell. I just modified setField() and writeMessage(). It's easy to back out my changes if you don't like them. I thought I had said I was going to implement dotted fields. I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. > I also notice that you did not change the place where dotted fields were > already being used, in the DataSend method. You mean for Storable? Yes, I forgot to change that. I'd do it now, but I don't want to interfere with your changes. > As part of the pluggable transport interface I had already added objects that > are FieldSets, which can contain fields with String, numeric, boolean of > FieldSet values. I was already using the dotted fields to do this. Alrighty then. When will this be committed? I need dotted fields in order to make the changes to support metadata. > > Also, why are messages ending with DataLength=0? The last thing I > > understood was that we had decided to end them with EndMessage. > > I did not make this change (if it changed) but it strikes me as pretty logical > to end after the trailing field name if the DataLength is zero (or not > existant). It makes more sense then looking for an arbitrary name. Yes, it's very sensible. I just thought it was decided to go with EndMessage instead of DataLength=0. I could very well be wrong. > I think we should try to stick to using one protocol. It is headache enough > trying to get the code to support more then one at all, more then one at a > time > would be really bad (though it could be written to, the node does not > currently > support more then one network protocol (ie tcp, udp) at a time either). I think that we should primarily work on a single protocol, but I think we should allow for multiple protocols to be used. It shouldn't be that hard. I'd make the necessary changes, but we need multiple protocols before I can do that. It would be very useful to support multiple protocols, particularly for gateways. For instance, I don't need encryption for the communication between the nodes on my LAN, but the node I talk to on the Internet might only speak to node with encryption or it might only talk over an SSL connection in order to be clandestine. I certainly wouldn't want to have to make my entire local Freenet network use SSL connections just to talk to this one node. Besides, Ian keeps asking for backwards compatibility with the old nodes and this would elegantly solve this problem. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
