On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:14:35AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote: > 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? Because FCP is pretty much the lowest level of abstraction we want if we want a client protocol which will ride out at least 0.2-0.4 and hopefully beyond. You don't want a higher level than you need to have. If we put anything higher level then it's something more we have to worry about. > 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? You can put some HighLevelClientGet in the node if you like that calls the other functions and handles metadata. That's a library behind a language independant interface. You could write a proxy which does the same thing, but runs in another process (and another language I would suspect) or you could put it in a client library. You can build whatever you like ontop of FCP. But FCP itself shouldn't be higher level than it really needs to be, otherwise we start cutting off clients who want to handle metadata etc. AGL -- Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010227/36ee3898/attachment.pgp>
