> Which brings up a question I have. Is the description of the protocol that has > been so kindly provided by Mr. Crocker an accurate picture of what changes > are going to be made? Message types, headers and field values, etc. > It would be nice to know if it describes what folks are intending to > implement.
So far, the primary coders (Oskar, Brandon, and Ian) have been the most silent on the matter of the spec, and have provided little or no feedback. Witness the recent argument about DataLength and EndMessage: this was argued by several of us, reached a general consensus among those involved in the argument, and has been rigorously specified to the byte, but the code violates it and the coders haven't given me any suggestions about how to change it. I can certainly understand a code jockey's resistance to what might be perceived as a "documentation" task, but in this case it's quite dangerous, because Freenet isn't the code--it's the spec. I'd put it this way--it is my intent that the spec accurately reflect what I think the coders intend. But my impression of their intent is limited to what I can glean without their help. -- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
