1. Introduce a restricted plugin API: nextgens has had this idea for a
while -
only give plugins a plugin API object instead of a full classloader
with access
to the entire Node. If plugins can only access Fred functions
explicitly
intended for plugin use, it should be way easier to figure out how
plugins are
intended to do things, way easier to document and find documentation
for
because it’s all in one area, and it could also have better security
characteristics with more work - like a system for plugins to be
granted and
restricted from various capabilities, both within Freenet’s API and on
the
system. It’d be better for backwards compatibility going forward
because now
it’s defined instead of plugins reaching into the Node object and
poking at
whatever they found to make things work.
2. Make FCP into a plugin: bonus points if it uses the restricted
plugin API.
It’d be a good way to test the plugin API and ensure it covers a good
amount of
functionality. This would separate an important function from core Fred
code.
(Side note: FCP really should require two-sided user interaction like
KeepassXC
and its browser companion plugins, or an API key, instead of giving
access to
whatever plugin can connect to its port.) The plugin might also be able
to be
run in a passive mode in a transition phase, like GitHub can do with
changes it
makes, where its answer to a query is compared to that of the
integrated FCP.
(This’d have to be for some subset of queries that doesn’t change the
state of
things - are there many/any of those? Maybe fall back to integrated FCP
for
things not implemented by the plugin?)
Maybe it would be a good idea to use a platform-neutral API? Then people
could develop their plugins in whatever languages they wanted, instead
of having to tightly couple them to Java. So either you'd connect over
TCP to a port, or you'd use some kind of C API, which nearly every
language trivially can make bindings for.
For smaller plugins, FCP could execute them, like in CGI. It would be
some work to sandbox them though. One way around it would be to not have
the system execute them, and for instance restrict yourself to Java at
first, but make it possible to extend to other language. Personally, I'm
a stickler for Lua, and that sandboxes very well.
As for queries changing the internal state, the nuclear option would be
to provide some "testing mode" where you run two instances and replicate
everything. But then what about the non-deterministic parts?
Another approach might be to gradually change FCP to interface with a
replica of the plugin API but still be integrated non-plugin functions
anymore, it can be separated out cleanly. In a second step, the plugin
API could be changed into a Java binding for a C plugin API, which in
turn is implemented as a C binding for a Java plugin API.
4. Transport plugins: we need more things Freenet traffic can look
like and
more ways for it to move around, and as a bonus doing this will likely
continue
to turn up bugs in various places.
What about Shoeshop? Could that architecture be extended?
Not to mention a Tor Hidden
Service transport plugin - listen as a hidden service, and connect to
other
nodes so listening.
Isn't I2P better for such applications? Freenet does use a lot of
bandwidth, after all.
Another low-hanging fruit would be BitTorrent. The DHT could be used as
a backup seed node. BitTorrent traffic doesn't draw attention, is
already encrypted, and doesn't look odd connecting to specific sets of
IPs. The GFW does use this heuristic to detect proxies - if a certain
percent of outbound bandwidth goes to an IP, then that gets blocked.
6. Can we adapt existing applications?: forgetting for a moment how
JavaScript
adverse much of our userbase is, can those who are willing to run it
(not from
Freesites but from local applications) be served by writing a backend
powered
by Freenet for an existing forum or wiki? How practical would that be
to do?
https://github.com/Requarks/wiki
https://github.com/discourse/discourse I feel
like we’re spending a lot of effort trying to write these applications
from the
ground up, and while that does have some desirable properties it’s also
more
work for fewer features.
For what purpose? Wikis are entirely static already, and to engineer a
forum does more or less require a from-the-ground-up re-architecture
anyway. And such an engineering work has been undertaken already, see
FMS.
I wouldn't think it's possible, anyway. Most of these applications rely
on secret databases and incoming connections, of which Freenet furnishes
for neither. You'd just be using Freenet as a poor man's Tor, as I
understand it.
Then you'd be better off running conventional MediaWiki software, using
a script to dump all of the pages as HTML to a directory, and then
publishing it as a conventional freesite. The downside is of course the
read-only nature and the poor scaling. Be
