>> I really do not like this idea.  Freenet is written in java.  It does NOT 
>> require
>> an installer to get it working (and it will work on any platform with the
>> requisite java).  Making this sort of change would require one to use an
>> installer.
>
>Not exactly : Using the installer will ease the installation process... But
>won't be mandatory ; CPUID is just there to detect wich type of cpu you are
>using, power users (those who don't use installers) do know what their CPU
>is ;)
>
>To sum up, there will be
>       - freenet-cvs-snapshot.jar      with fred
>       - freenet-ext.jar               with BDB code, Onion FEC
>       - freenet-native-libs.jar       with optimized native code in it
>
>freenet-native-libs.jar will be fetched by the installer from the apropriate
>directory on the server; Something like :
>
>       /iX86/
>               pentium/
>               pentium-mmx/
>               athlon/
>               athlon64/
>       /x86_64/
>       /powerPC/
>       ...

i don't think it is wise if all the binary libraries have the same name!

cpu identification has not to be only done by the installer to fetch the 
correct lib, but also when running the node.
people (me) tend to copy data and even java programs from windows to linux and 
vice versa, or having multiple operating systems on the same computer and run 
java programs from one single location.
now the best that can happen if by windows box runs a debian binary (or even 
extremely more worse: a sse3 lib from work on my athlon thunderbird at home - 
that's sure to blow) is that it refuses to work, the words that it crashes. to 
prevent this a cpu detection has to be 
done to keep the node from executing wrong library machine code, to the 
detection has to be in the node. and calling the correct library by its 
filename is FAR easier than to guess if the available lib is the corerect one 
for the platform.
i think it is also very unintuitive to have different libs share the same name 
as you can never know if the current library is the correct for the used 
machine enviroment, in fact there is IMHO no reason to actually LET them have 
the same name!
also, for multi-os machines it would make sense to have the, e.g. windows and 
linux, library both available and in the same folder without having to swap 
them by a rename script which is extra hassle

so, in short:
separation of a huge native lib into smaller libpacks - yes
let them have the same name - many, some small and some large, NO!s




Reply via email to