Ian Clarke wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Florent Daigni?re > <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: > >>> But the same argument could be used in my Java analogy. Java has a >>> far higher profile than many apps written in Java, but it doesn't >>> follow that Java should bundle all of these apps. >>> >> Heh, java has a frozen API... last time I checked ours is neither frozen nor >> even versioned! >> > > How is that relevant to this discussion? >
It would seem to be difficult for a client application to ship given the current rate of development.. Let's say I was writing a game, such as WoW, and wanted my players to do all their updating over Freenet.. I'm going to be pressing this game to millions of CDs, and don't expect to revise it for another 6-12 months, at the earliest. What version do I put on the CD? 9 months from now, when someone installs my game, and it auto-fires up Freenet, Freenet will be many, many revisions out of date. I would have to take it on faith that update-over-mandatory through opennet would get the users up to the newest level, and then hope that FCP hasn't changed in the intervening months. With Java, I can say "This requires version 5.0 of the JVM" , and know that the APIs that I want will be there, and that users will be at the revision I expect. As a further aside- What is the expected/desired behavior if two applications are both installed which want to bundle freenet? Should they check to see if something exists? What if it's the old .5 or .3 versions? What if the Freenet project goes through another network reset? These aren't unsolvable problems, but they're the sorts of things which I would suspect give client apps concerns.
