On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:31:47AM +0200, Niklas Bergh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:17:57PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote:
How long do you think connection multiplexing will take to impliment?
I don't think it will take long to implement. However I haven't fully
thought through the
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:22:40PM +0300, Costas Dokolas wrote:
It would certainly be possible to implement multiplexing
in a backwards
compatible way. HOWEVER, at some point we would want to make
multiplexing mandatory, because the old way of dealing
with connections
is so
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:06:48AM -0700, Reskill wrote:
I just couldn't reserve comment any longer:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:32:03 -0700 Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Pete wrote:
Erm toad didn't you like say to Reskill that you wouldn't be able
to
Toad wrote:
Suggestion:
I implement multiplexing and test it on a local testbed of a few nodes.
I don't implement any kind of backward compatibility.
Followed by a larger testbed of a few volunteers' nodes.
Followed by a network reset - wide deployment, without backward
compatibility.
I am a bit
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:06:32PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
Toad wrote:
Suggestion:
I implement multiplexing and test it on a local testbed of a few nodes.
I don't implement any kind of backward compatibility.
Followed by a larger testbed of a few volunteers' nodes.
Followed by a network
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Pete wrote:
I just want to be able to read scum/fillament/reskill/thoughtcrime and
others again :-(
Hear hear.
-todd
___
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 03:21:27PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
Please forgive the obvious, but I seem to see these as two separate
issues.. Multiplexing could be implemented with the current network,
couldn't it?
Current nodes could have multiplexing capability, and only use that
when
On Wed, 10/15/03 at 20:26:06 +0100, Toad wrote:
Current unstable - stable merge first, then multiplexing on unstable
branch with a split network between unstable and stable might be one way
to handle this.
If the unstable code is likely to become good enough to merge before
multiplexing
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:41:58PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote:
On Wed, 10/15/03 at 20:26:06 +0100, Toad wrote:
Current unstable - stable merge first, then multiplexing on unstable
branch with a split network between unstable and stable might be one way
to handle this.
If the unstable
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:51:53PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote:
On Wed, 10/15/03 at 20:45:42 +0100, Toad wrote:
-Allow firewalled nodes to be fully functional parts of the network
just without ARK insertion. This will give us some of the scalability
advantages of Gnutella's
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 08:53:07PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
One possible idea, though not necessarily a very good one, is to make
the default freenet installation two separate nodes, one stable and one
unstable (with standard ports to distinguish them). Encourage people to
use both for
2003 19:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Another Drastic Solution
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 07:52:34PM +0100, Toad wrote:
Suggestion:
I implement multiplexing and test it on a local testbed of a few
nodes. I don't implement any kind of backward compatibility. Followed
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Pete wrote:
Erm toad didn't you like say to Reskill that you wouldn't be able to
test freenet without letting it run in the wild? How is having a
separate test network that isn't backwardly compatible with the current
network then forcing a network
scum/fillament/reskill/thoughtcrime and others
again :-(
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Toad
Sent: 16 October 2003 00:32
To: Discussion of development issues
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Another Drastic Solution
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:30
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:39:15AM +0100, Pete wrote:
wilde hello everyone
[frontier] lo widle
[frontier] wilde ;)
wilde are there any good node.refs out there?
wilde 5028 build
[frontier] doubt it quoting toad When I say wide deployment, I still
mean unstable branch - only the crazy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Toad
Sent: 16 October 2003 00:46
To: Discussion of development issues
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Another Drastic Solution
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:39:15AM +0100, Pete wrote:
wilde hello everyone
[frontier
16 matches
Mail list logo
