Agreed, I think a push approach will be better, and probably simpler to implement.
Ian. On 12/6/07, David Sowder (Zothar) <freenet-devl at david.sowder.com> wrote: > I believe eligible seednodes pushing voluntarily to emu is much more > maintainable than emu needing to be configured to pull from specific > volunteer nodes that may or may not still be around in six months. > Nodes pushing is more automatic. > > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thursday 06 December 2007 09:53, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > >> * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-12-06 02:01:50]: > >> > >> On .5 Emu was polling the data out of some nodes... I would prefer it to > >> remain that way in the longer-term ;) > >> > > > > IMHO it's not really feasible as most nodes won't be eligible to be > > seednodes > > (generally due to being NATed). > > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > -- Email: ian.clarke at gmail.com Cell: +1 512 422 3588 AIM: ian.clarke at mac.com Skype: sanity
