On Monday 03 August 2009 00:28:57 Jonas Bengtsson wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:38:56 +0100 > Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > IMHO the best way to handle this is to keep a week reference to the > > PeerNode, so we can display the current name of the node which sent the > > message, no? > > I have rewritten N2NTMUserAlert, DownloadFeedUserAlert and > BookmarkFeedUserAlert to use weak references. Is the > DarknetPeerNode only garbage collected when a darknet peer is removed > or are there other cases?
No other cases AFAIK. > > > Thinking particularly of 0f68ca45ef5521fc9b5672053f6c04bf80ae0c7f - why do > > we need to parse it out of the SFS, don't we already know the node that > > sent the message? > > The reason is historic. The original code for node-to-node text > messages worked in that way. I have now rewriten it and removed > the source and target node names from the SimpleFieldSet. > Ok. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090807/a35931db/attachment.pgp>
