On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> Swt. I loved that show. As a little kid, I didn't know what the hell
> those glass structures were,
You mean you know what they are now!?
Michael
___
Devl mailing list
Devl at fre
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> Swt. I loved that show. As a little kid, I didn't know what the hell
> those glass structures were,
You mean you know what they are now!?
Michael
___
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PRO
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:52:45PM -0500, Steven Hazel wrote:
> "Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" writes:
>
> > Many functions aren't prefixed (inappropriate for a potentially shared
> > library).
>
> Yeah, I should have done that a long time ago. All of the exposed API
> functions are prefixed. I'll be
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:43:28PM -0500, Steven Hazel wrote:
> "Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" writes:
>
> > Hm. I'll look into it. I think that libfreenet requires some cleaning
> > up, though... (frex, you're using floats to handle major.minor version
> > number pairs. ick.)
>
> Yeah, it definitely
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:51:59PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
> > So what you're saying is that if there were a well enforced separation
> > between the protocol message layer and the message passing logic, you
> > could update the former without touching the latter, and you'd magically
> > have a 0.4
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 08:49:57PM +0100, Dave Hooper wrote:
> > 2) How would you rate your code for platform-independence and portability,
> > especially to platforms like Windoze?
>
> I don't personally see what the big issue is with portability of C code to
> Windows... unless the Freenet-in-C
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:25:25PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
> > B> This won't stop your node from breaking when 0.4 is released.
> >
> > Will anything?
>
> Basing it on libfreenet would make it as painless as possible as it frees
> you from over-the-wire protocol issues. You'd still have to upda
From: "Frank Joppe"
> > 2) How would you rate your code for platform-independence and
portability,
> > especially to platforms like Windoze?
>
> Interesting question, how about the difference between PC (Intel) and
Apple
> (Motorola)? big/low endian... you can trust a protocol-complience on one
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:17:51PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
>
> > > So the only thing you'd need to keep up to date is node behaviour.
> >
> > Reiska isn't really built on top of libfreenet. I stol^Wborrowed some
> > of the code and adapted it to the glib-1.2 type and memory allocation
> > system, s
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> > > Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> > > construction job.
> >
> > Perhaps Adam is actually a Doozer? (of "F
me, Windows node installations will vastly
> outnumber *nix ones (if they don't already).
Dunno about that ... Windows isn't exactly the most stable OS. Unless by
'installation' you mean casual freenet node rather than 24/7 node?
D
- Original Message -
From: &
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 10:42:15PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
>
> > 1) How do you rate the prospect of you keeping it protocol-compatible with
> > the official Java Freenet as it evolves from version to version?
>
> Since it's based on libfreenet, a lot of its upkeep will be taken care of
> by updatin
)
From: "Kalle A. Sandstr\"om"
To: devl at freenetproject.org
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC
Message-ID: <20010428034024.A18221 at iki.fi>
References: <20010427054712.B13177 at iki.fi> <87d79zj609.fsf at
azrael.dyn.cheapnet.net> <20010427190109.A155
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:59:37PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> From: "Kalle A. Sandstr"om"
>
> >Right. I've written a deeply hackerware experimental freenet node
> >implementation (in C) -- currently it can connect to the 'testserver'
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) How do you rate the prospect of
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:47:41PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
>
> Om du ska skriva en Freenet nod nu s? kanske du borde ha 1.4 protokollet
> som m?l i st?llet f?r 1.3 som anv?nds nu. Jag h?ller p? och skriver en
> spec f?r det, och ska f?rs?ka ha n?got klart ?ver helgen (jag kan inte
> s?ga det
"Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" writes:
> > Yeah, it definitely does need some clean-up. I've got an enormous
> > list, and I'm working on it.
>
> Is that a long list of small things or a small list of large things?-)
>
> Anyway, mind passing the list my way? Maybe I could fix some of the
> things whi
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> > > Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> > > construction job.
> >
> > Perhaps Adam is actually a Doozer? (of "
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:52:45PM -0500, Steven Hazel wrote:
> "Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Many functions aren't prefixed (inappropriate for a potentially shared
> > library).
>
> Yeah, I should have done that a long time ago. All of the exposed API
> functions ar
"Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After trying to figure out exactly WHICH fields of a HandshakeRequest Fred
> sets in the 0.3 protocol and to what values, I'd think myself ready for ANY
> kind of transitional pain. (I'll be proven wrong, of course. I'll be sure
> to vent on
"Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yeah, it definitely does need some clean-up. I've got an enormous
> > list, and I'm working on it.
>
> Is that a long list of small things or a small list of large things?-)
>
> Anyway, mind passing the list my way? Maybe I could fix some
"Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" writes:
> I'd attach the fixed sources to this mail, but I'm a bit wary of sending
> attachments without prior permission :-)
Go ahead and attach.
> Hm. I'll look into it. I think that libfreenet requires some cleaning
> up, though... (frex, you're using floats to handl
> Anywho, how's Whiterose coming along? I'd personally prefer to run a node
> written as a Java-to-C++ port than a Java-to-C port.
No one's suggesting a C port. They're suggesting a C implementation
written from scratch. This is also a good way to see what horrible
Java-centrisms have leaked int
> So what you're saying is that if there were a well enforced separation
> between the protocol message layer and the message passing logic, you
> could update the former without touching the latter, and you'd magically
> have a 0.4 compatible node? I must say that I'm a little suspicious
> of th
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:43:28PM -0500, Steven Hazel wrote:
> "Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hm. I'll look into it. I think that libfreenet requires some cleaning
> > up, though... (frex, you're using floats to handle major.minor version
> > number pairs. ick.)
>
>
Om du ska skriva en Freenet nod nu s? kanske du borde ha 1.4 protokollet
som m?l i st?llet f?r 1.3 som anv?nds nu. Jag h?ller p? och skriver en
spec f?r det, och ska f?rs?ka ha n?got klart ?ver helgen (jag kan inte
s?ga det Adam h?r bara, f?r d? blir det inget slut p? gn?llet n?r jag
misslyckas me
> >
> > Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> > Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> > construction job.
>
> Perhaps Adam is actually a Doozer? (of "Fraggle Rock" fame).
Swt. I loved that show. As a little kid, I didn't
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:51:59PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
> > So what you're saying is that if there were a well enforced separation
> > between the protocol message layer and the message passing logic, you
> > could update the former without touching the latter, and you'd magically
> > have a 0.4
>From "Frank Joppe"
>> Also, differences in file path syntax: Unix: /dir1/dir2/../dirn/filename,
>> Windows: C:\dir1\dir2\..\dirn\filename.ext
>
>I believe java has a canonical representation for this. The app uses the
>canonical way to represent the path, the JRE translates this then to the
>Ope
> Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> construction job.
And thus I am not worried that it won't keep up. :-)
> B> This won't stop your node from breaking when 0.4 is released.
>
> Wil
"Kalle A. Sandstr\"om" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd attach the fixed sources to this mail, but I'm a bit wary of sending
> attachments without prior permission :-)
Go ahead and attach.
> Hm. I'll look into it. I think that libfreenet requires some cleaning
> up, though... (frex, you're u
pril 27, 2001 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC
> From: "Frank Joppe"
>
>
> > > 2) How would you rate your code for platform-independence and
> portability,
> > > especially to platforms like Windoze?
> >
> > Interesting question, how a
11:22:26 -0700
To: devl at freenetproject.org
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC
References:
From: "Mr.Bad"
Organization: Pigdog Journal
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 91F8 6B2D EBEA 8D7A 3F20 E5B0 6D97 B3BC F498 A1D9
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 08:49:57PM +0100, Dave Hooper wrote:
> > 2) How would you rate your code for platform-independence and portability,
> > especially to platforms like Windoze?
>
> I don't personally see what the big issue is with portability of C code to
> Windows... unless the Freenet-in-
> Anywho, how's Whiterose coming along? I'd personally prefer to run a node
> written as a Java-to-C++ port than a Java-to-C port.
No one's suggesting a C port. They're suggesting a C implementation
written from scratch. This is also a good way to see what horrible
Java-centrisms have leaked in
> So what you're saying is that if there were a well enforced separation
> between the protocol message layer and the message passing logic, you
> could update the former without touching the latter, and you'd magically
> have a 0.4 compatible node? I must say that I'm a little suspicious
> of t
David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:59 AM
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC
___
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:25:25PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
> > B> This won't stop your node from breaking when 0.4 is released.
> >
> > Will anything?
>
> Basing it on libfreenet would make it as painless as possible as it frees
> you from over-the-wire protocol issues. You'd still have to upd
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:17:51PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
>
> > > So the only thing you'd need to keep up to date is node behaviour.
> >
> > Reiska isn't really built on top of libfreenet. I stol^Wborrowed some
> > of the code and adapted it to the glib-1.2 type and memory allocation
> > system,
trust it on another?
- Original Message -
From: "David McNab"
To:
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC
> From: "Kalle A. Sandstr"om"
>
> >Right. I've written a deeply hackerware experimental freenet node
&
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> > > Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> > > construction job.
> >
> > Perhaps Adam is actually a Doozer? (of "F
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 11:22:26AM -0700, Mr. Bad wrote:
> Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> construction job.
I actually intend releasing wrose 0.4. But don't tell anyone.
AGL
--
The
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 11:22:26AM -0700, Mr . Bad wrote:
> > "B" == Brandon writes:
>
> B> I am very dubious of the staying power of any fully independent
> B> implementations of the Freenet protocol (except for Whiterose,
> B> which is obviously maintained by an obsessed maniac
> "B" == Brandon writes:
B> I am very dubious of the staying power of any fully independent
B> implementations of the Freenet protocol (except for Whiterose,
B> which is obviously maintained by an obsessed maniac, which is a
B> good thing).
Yeah, but Whiterose is always one
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:29:58PM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> > > Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> > > construction job.
> >
> > Perhaps Adam is actually a Doozer? (of "
> >
> > Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> > Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> > construction job.
>
> Perhaps Adam is actually a Doozer? (of "Fraggle Rock" fame).
Swt. I loved that show. As a little kid, I didn't
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 11:22:26AM -0700, Mr . Bad wrote:
> > "B" == Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> B> I am very dubious of the staying power of any fully independent
> B> implementations of the Freenet protocol (except for Whiterose,
> B> which is obviously maintained b
> Yeah, but Whiterose is always one version ahead, anyways. The point of
> Whiterose is not to maintain Fred compatibility, but to be an endless
> construction job.
And thus I am not worried that it won't keep up. :-)
> B> This won't stop your node from breaking when 0.4 is released.
>
> Wi
> "B" == Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
B> I am very dubious of the staying power of any fully independent
B> implementations of the Freenet protocol (except for Whiterose,
B> which is obviously maintained by an obsessed maniac, which is a
B> good thing).
Yeah, but Whit
> > So the only thing you'd need to keep up to date is node behaviour.
>
> Reiska isn't really built on top of libfreenet. I stol^Wborrowed some
> of the code and adapted it to the glib-1.2 type and memory allocation
> system, so you can see traces of the libfreenet code here and there.
Ah, nev
>From "Frank Joppe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Also, differences in file path syntax: Unix: /dir1/dir2/../dirn/filename,
>> Windows: C:\dir1\dir2\..\dirn\filename.ext
>
>I believe java has a canonical representation for this. The app uses the
>canonical way to represent the path, the JRE translates t
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 10:42:15PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
>
> > 1) How do you rate the prospect of you keeping it protocol-compatible with
> > the official Java Freenet as it evolves from version to version?
>
> Since it's based on libfreenet, a lot of its upkeep will be taken care of
> by updati
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:59:37PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> From: "Kalle A. Sandstr"om" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Right. I've written a deeply hackerware experimental freenet node
> >implementation (in C) -- currently it can connect to the 'testserver'
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) How do you r
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:47:41PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
>
> Om du ska skriva en Freenet nod nu så kanske du borde ha 1.4 protokollet
> som mål i stället för 1.3 som används nu. Jag håller på och skriver en
> spec för det, och ska försöka ha något klart över helgen (jag kan inte
> säga det
Om du ska skriva en Freenet nod nu så kanske du borde ha 1.4 protokollet
som mål i stället för 1.3 som används nu. Jag håller på och skriver en
spec för det, och ska försöka ha något klart över helgen (jag kan inte
säga det Adam hör bara, för då blir det inget slut på gnället när jag
misslyckas m
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC
> From: "Frank Joppe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > > 2) How would you rate your code for platform-independence and
> portability,
> > > especially t
d Unix (perhaps Mac as well). Keep it up.
Cheers
David
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC
>
>
> > Fro
you trust it on another?
- Original Message -
From: "David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:59 AM
Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] YAEFNIIC
> From: "Kalle A. Sandstr"om" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> &
> 1) How do you rate the prospect of you keeping it protocol-compatible with
> the official Java Freenet as it evolves from version to version?
Since it's based on libfreenet, a lot of its upkeep will be taken care of
by updating libfreenet. That's the beauty of a modular library.
So the only t
> Right. I've written a deeply hackerware experimental freenet node
> implementation (in C) -- currently it can connect to the 'testserver'
> program in Steven Hazel's libfreenet successfully.
That's awesome! I'd really like a C node.
___
Devl maili
From: "Kalle A. Sandstr"om" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Right. I've written a deeply hackerware experimental freenet node
>implementation (in C) -- currently it can connect to the 'testserver'
Two questions:
1) How do you rate the prospect of you keeping it protocol-compatible with
the official Java
Right. I've written a deeply hackerware experimental freenet node
implementation (in C) -- currently it can connect to the 'testserver'
program in Steven Hazel's libfreenet successfully. (I haven't tested the
encrypted transport against Fred yet since my node is dropping connections
right after
62 matches
Mail list logo
