On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:29:21PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2001, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > For those who think that layer #2 should be a front-end to layer #1, all > > you are doing is adding unnescessary bloat. Any smart implementation of > > layer #2 will interface directly with the node, and there will be no > > incentive to use layer #1. > > I disagree. Nodes have enough to do already. Layers 2 and 3 should be > implemented as a separate program, in order to prevent duplication of > effort and incompatibilities (which will be hell for client writers).
If there were likely to be more nodes than clients, then this would be a valid concern, but the opposite is true. We may never have more than 2 node implementations, but we could have hundreds of clients (we already have 5 or 6). 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/20010515/d6056c86/attachment.pgp>
