Brandon wrote: > > > How bout this idea: > > We take the server in the URL as a *suggestion*. > > The priority of who to contact first for the data is as follows: > > 1. Localhost > > 2. entries in ~/.freenet > > 3. entries in /etc/freenet.conf or appropriate master file > > 4. Suggested server in URL. > > Fair enough? > Lovely.
I strongly disagree here, there is no difference between specifying a server in a URL and just hosting the data using HTTP on that same server, in fact, HTTP would probably be quicker since it lacks the handshaking overhead. If people want to browse data on Freenet then they MUST have access to a Freenet node through one means or another. Specifying a node in a web page, for example, will completly defeat the point of Freenet, even with your suggestion above, since it will tempt people to get lazy, and then if a piece of information gets popular, the Freenet node specified will grind to a halt, and the data will be unavailable - exactly the scenario we hope to avoid! When you specify a mailto: link in a URL do you specify a mail server? Of course not - that would be silly. Similarily for someone wanting to run a Freenet server - access to their own (or a local shared) freenet node is as essential as access to a mail or DNS server. To make my position clear: Freenet servers have *NO* place in URLs, even as a fallback mechanism. Ian. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
