On Wednesday 11 July 2007 03:04, Christian Biere wrote: > Haxe wrote: ... > > Or at least lobby the > > LimeWire developers into fixing the problem themselves? > > Did I hear "I volunteer"? Please, go ahead.
OK, I have just subscribed to LimeWire's development forums. But for a technical discussion, I need technical arguments why LimeWire's current behaviour is especially bad. Several questions come to my mind: - Does LW drop long queries as an Ultrapeer, so that these queries are not even routed, or does it only ignore them when comparing to its local database? - What about non-simple-keyword searches? SHA1? Are they affected? Does LW honour them at all? And what are those "XML queries" mentioned in the recent SVN commits? XML sounds like "longer than 30 bytes" to me. - Are there other types of queries that I don't know about that tend to be long? Do magnet links induce special query types? - Does LW's behaviour have a bad influence on QRP? I am not very familiar with the procedure that puts the keyword hash tables in place. - How did you discover LW's behaviour? What kind of bad effect did you notice? - Why was the bug not noticed during the last three years? Is it possible that it is not such a big problem after all? When I clearly understand the problem, then I will try to get in contact with the LW developers. bye, Hauke Hachmann ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
