On Tuesday 04 March 2008 18:50, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > bbackde at googlemail.com a ?crit : > > 2008/3/4 Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org>: > >> On Tuesday 04 March 2008 18:04, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > >> > In the current discussions I miss one thing. Everyone wants to start > >> > his own thingy. > >> > It would be much more effective if all interested parties get > >> > together, decide about a design > >> > and then implement it _together_! SomeDude wrote fms and got some > >> > experience with the > >> > web of trust, now we start a WoT from scratch. Seagull already has a > >> > working (not completed) > >> > version of FMS in Java, but we start something different? > >> > >> It would be great to see some code! > >> > > > > Ack! I am in contact with seagull, I hope we see the code in some SVN soon. > > > >> > Is the FMS port unneeded then? Or should WoT and FMS be competitors? > >> > > >> > No offense, I just wanted to read your thinkings about this :) > >> > > >> > I also experienced this with Frost: I am the only true Frost developer > >> > for a long time now, > >> > and again and again someone came up with its own new tools. I love > >> > competition, but > >> > as you all know there is alot to do in Frost, and we would have made a > >> > much better tool > >> > for all users if we would have worked together on Frost. > >> > >> Well, with FMS, hopefully there will only be one implementation for the > >> foreseeable future. I get the impression batosai is getting impatient though. > >> I would be if I wasn't barred from working on it. :) > > > > I understand, really. But Julien, do you really want to start with a > > new WoT design instead > > of using something which currently works (fms)? We have the C code for > > this implementation, > > and its Java port also (soon). Do you think current fms isn't the right thing? > > I've got no problem with FMS and I personnally think that it is the way > to go. But I don't think the WoT feature should be a part of it. As I > explained before, most of Freenet features will, sooner or later, need a > WoT. Making it a plugin accessible through FCP will save some time for > other developpments.
I thought FMS was going to be a plugin accessible through FCP? > > And all client apps could benefit of a common WoT : if an identity is a > valuable contributor to discussion boards, there is a good chance that > the files he shares are valuable too. > > Of course I will re-use a lot of the existing code (why re-invent the > wheel). My idea is just to get the WoT feature out of client apps. > > > @Toad : You're right. I'm impatient ;) I'm finally learning Java, and > seeking for an idea that could help the project. Maybe I'm wasting my > time with that idea of independant plugin and should help FMS' java > porter to make his WoT accessible to other apps ? What is your opinion > about what I should start with ? If your answer is my original idea of a > filesharing tool, note that I'll need a WoT ;) :) Well there's not much you can do without the code. -------------- 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/20080304/7e420385/attachment.pgp>
