-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I disagree with expiration outright. Its a complication that drastically limits the flexibility of an author, for little actual benefit. Update should == replace, of a referential key, not insert of a new key because the old one has disappeared.
> > I agree, it will be a trade-off for authors, providing a timeout would > work well for, say, something that is regularly updated (like a Freenet > version of /. for example!), but not so well where an author wishes to > retain the possibilty of an update, without committing to update within > any time-frame. The latter must accept that an update of this type of > data (we could call this passive-updatable data as opposed to > active-updatable data with the expiry time) would be less efficient and > require longer to take-effect. > > Additionally, it would be good if Expiry's could be accurately timed, > this would require that nodes standardize their time measurements > according to GMT (or another fixed time). This requires a little more > effort during configuration for node operators (unless Java can do this > - I can't remember). > > > We also need to make clear that if these SVKs are redirects > > to CHK full documents, expiry of the two is independent. Expiry on the > > SVK means that it no longer point to an "up-to-date" document, though > > some still may want to retrieve older versions by CHK. CHK documents > > should never expire, really, just fall into disuse. > > Surely a SVK should just die when it expires, unless we want a > non-up-to-date document to be returned in the event that an up-to-date > version cannot be found? This might be troublesome, I think we should > just delete expired (ie. non-updated) SVKs outright. > > > Perhaps some combination of the two might be best--your slightly > > expanded update, plus a slightly expanded fetch (say, a fetch that > > begins sending the data found, then makes 1 or 2 extra hops to > > tell the neighboring nodes it has done so, allowing them to send > > update messages if they happen to have a newer version. > > Sounds good to me. > > Ian. > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5GKG1pXyM95IyRhURAuVKAKC36gCvkBNUoT/+3Nmi14tqGmfN6gCggm9Z /EMg0sRiu8titrJtKWFeh1U= =gTi1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
