I think the location of the data should be just the freenet 'cloud'. Surely the idea of freenet is in effect that there is only one server - the whole of freenet. Sure.. freenet's no good if you don't have an entry point.. not much good if you don't have a freenet client of some sort either.... Your entry point doesn't change depending on what key you're requesting, so I'd have to agree it'd be better as a configuration setting in the client.
Specifying nodes in urls just seems wrong to me... A url is something that's designed to be communicated by various means (webpages,voice,napkins) and is supposed to be relevant no matter what part of the universe you're in. I don't really think it's a good idea to abuse them this way even temporarily... urls have a way of hanging around. Julz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence W. Leung" <[email protected]> To: <freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Freeclient 0.5 Released > > Stinky. > > > > Freenet URLs should not include the server. The server is a > > setting. Setting it in URL will confuse users, and makes as much > > sense as having your Web proxy in the URL. > > > > The URL is supposed to locate a piece of data. It is supposed to > > decribe locater necessary to find that data. The node used to enter > > Freenet has NOTHING to do with this. It doesn't even have to be an > > Internet host. > > Freenet isn't any good if you dont have an entry point. Your key is > basically useless unless the client can find a server that is close enough > to the data to retrieve it. Encoding a node's information in there helps > the client find data. The only difference between this and > http is that ours is a suggestion, not a demand. Most of the time users > wont make suggestions. Sometimes they will have to in order to get what > they want. > > Hopefully this will eventually become obsolete. But for now I think there > needs to be a mechanism to suggest where to enter freenet. > > Perhaps it's not the cleanest thing you can do, but I think it's an ok > compromise. I'd rather abuse the URL a bit than have a user not find > his/her data when it exists on the network. > > I suspect most users wont ever see this type of a URL after freenet takes > off (big if here) and this format will become obsolete and this wont be an > issue. > > Thoughts? > -Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
