> > Next I'm going to make the clients actually use the metadata attached to > > files, do automatice separated metadata insertion and retrieval along with > > data insertion and retrieval, and write a file server node to keep > > information in Freenet. > You do know that this is complete in Insert and RequestClient in the tree, > right? I am having some weird problems with the node rejecting inserts
Indeed, I was confused as to how much you had actually implemented. You've done pretty much everything I was going to do in that area. Now I just need to tweak FCRC to use ContentType and I may tweak your de-encrypting code a bit to allow aribtrarily nested encodings, but those are minor things. > A freenet document is of the following structure (ignore newlines): > > <2-octet keylength L> > <L key bytes> > [optional private metadata] > <Data> I'm confused here. Where does a freenet document exist in this structure? Are you referring to the client-agreed format of the information in the trailing field? > The only thing I have against putting ContentType in the private > (attached) metadata as Oskar suggests is that it means we're specifying > what has to be in the attached metadata. I'd rather it be a freely usable > field. However, it would be nice to have private storable > fields. Perhaps I should extend the metadata to be simply a multipart > document, and we could have a storable field name Private-storables that > pointed at which part contained a list of the private storable fields? Well, ContentType isn't required, it's just agreed upon by the clients that it's a good thing to put in the metadata. I think it's fine to suggest to clients what would be good as long as it's optional. I'm a bit confused as to what you mean in the last sentence, with the multipart document. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
