Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> Ask questions, I'll answer, and then somebody can cut it together into a
> more comprehensive documentation.
Fair enough. That hasn't been my experience in the past. Perhaps I'm
asking the wrong questions.
> But it is fairly abstracted and layered. You don't need to understand the
> progressive hash to work on the key exchange, or vice versa. You don't
> have to understand the presentation protocol to work on the datastore.
Fred is layered, sure. But there's little or no documentation on how
classes interact, what they are responsible for, and why they do what
they do. The architecture isn't documented.
Anyone can read what the code _does_, but there's nothing to document
what it is _supposed to do_. Is that a bug or a feature? An
inefficient block of code, or is there a reason it was designed that
way? Are they the only valid cases, or could there be more in the
future?
That's the barrier to new developers: understanding _why_ the code
works, not _how_ it works.
(uhh, I've been CC'ing both the old and new lists. is that bad?)
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] F289 2BDB 1DA0 F4C4 DC87 EC36 B2E3 4E75 C853 FD93
http://zem.squidly.org "..I'm invisible, I'm invisible, I'm invisible.."
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
