On Sunday 02 December 2007 04:24, Juergen Urner wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Well, in the current API, you can either come up with a unique name, or not > > have any client-name-specific state i.e. either have no persistent requests > > or store them all on the global queue. I don't see how any other solution > > would help - if you start persistent requests, exit, another client steals > > your name, you give way to that client, then you'll have lost them. > > ...or another client may flood mine with leftover requests. Very > unlikely case, but no > magic either if some future version of the protocol would equip clients > to handle > their own persistence.
There is nothing I can do about this afaics. If you need persistent non-global requests then USE A UNIQUE NAME. If not, then use a random name. > > Thanks for listening, Juergen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20071203/caff7cac/attachment.pgp>
