On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 06:32:21PM +0000, Adam Langley wrote: > The node shouldn't handle Metadata.
Why not? We already acknowledge that nodes now have a dual role - the first to be a node in the network, the second to talk to their local user. We are implicitly acknowledging this by integrating FCP and Fproxy into the node. > People can put any library wrappers around FCP they like. The whole point of FCP is to minimise client-side development effort, why should we draw an arbitrary line at metadata? > If clients want high-level access, use the library. If not - don't. So now we require every library in every possible language to support something that we could easily place in the node? I really think you need to justify this significant amount of extra work for client writers (who we are supposed to be making life easier for) with something other than "elegance". I don't think that assuming that people will write libraries is a valid response to this. Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010227/6c25f023/attachment.pgp>
