> Hi, > > for the naming of WoT and FMS: > > both terms are used by the current c++-fms and stand for a > specific implementation. The current code in trunk named WoT > and FMS are imcompactible, so i would suggest to rename both > parts to something else to not confuse people about their > ability and goal. > > I would suggest to use "WoT" and "FMS" only for Versions > compactible to the original version.
- "Web of Trust" is really the best name which can be chosen for a web-of-trust plugin because it just describes what it is. Besides, there has been no other plugin/freenet-app using that name so it is free and should be kept. FMS was chosen because its a really descriptive name I guess. It is "the message system for freenet", so its called FMS. It was decided (by me in agreement with toad) to not go for any compatibility with the C++ FMS because of several reasons: - The current version of the WoT-plugin does not support separate message trust and trust list trust. - It is not necessary to have several trust levels, it only makes things more complicated and confuses users. - C++-FMS does not contain enough content which is worth being saved. Compatibility with C++-FMS would require a week of work I guess and its just not worth it. As soon as there is java-FMS bundled with Freenet it will have 3x the user-amount of C++-FMS and within few weeks way more content than C++-FMS ever had. If we wanted backwards compatibility then we should rather go for compatibility with Frost, it was even more popular. And this obviously would be insane. So lets just drop compatibility and design something decent and completely new. - After all, C++-FMS was labeled a PROTOTYPE, prototypes are not for production usage. If people use prototypes its their problem if the content they post there is los. ... So it was like that: I started to do lots of work on FMS, then figured out those reasons for dropping C++-FMS compatibility, and then it was still called FMS. If anyone comes up with a better name please suggest it, but it has to be just as self-explanatory etc. as "FMS". I don't think that keeping the name will hurt, we can just keep C++-FMS out of the default bookmarks as soon as java-FMS is bundled. C++-FMS will be forgotten completely just as fast as it appeared. > saces is currently > working on a c++-compactible version of the fmsplugin, so at > least for the second thing there exists something real. Thats not true: "[23:49] <saces> p0s: atm its identical with the svn version without yours." - The SVN before I started working on it was just a class skeleton. No commits recently. So our coordination is still working :) Greetings, Sam / xor / p0s (I will drop one of the nicknames soon, sorry for the confusion)
