Re: WoT plugin

On Monday 03 March 2008 17:43, bbackde-gM/[email protected] wrote:
> Try perst. Seagull already made good experiences with the perst
> performance, as I did in Frost.
> He works on the Java port of fms. As far as I know there is already
> some kind of trust system inside
> the fms code? So lets start using the Java port code and maybe separate it.

Perst sounds good but has whole-database-level locking. That's bad, we 
probably won't use it for the datastore for that reason.
> 
> 2008/3/3 Julien Cornuwel <[email protected]>:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >  I've been thinking about the discussion initiated by bback (FMS Java
> >  design) and wondered if I shouldn't put my actual project on standby and
> >  start working on a WoT plugin.
> >
> >  It seems to me that a WoT plugin would be more usefull than a
> >  filesharing tool... And of course, my first project would benefit of the
> >  WoT.
> >
> >  So, unless someone with more experience volunteers for it, I think I'll
> >  start working on it.
> >
> >  About the implementation, I think a relational database would be faster
> >  for trust calculation. I see a solution based only on the filesystem but
> >  it will use *a lot* of disk space to ensure decent performances.
> >
> >  If I use a relational database, my preference goes to derby, which has
> >  to be loaded by the node itself. On my own machine, I load it in
> >  wrapper.conf. We'll have to find a more elegant solution...
> >
> >
> >  Your thoughts ?

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHzH2YA9rUluQ9pFARAmFiAKCk7lUXjOjC3Aawj5m0H9wSdpUxqwCggAZh
+3yIS6vE2G5mBgY/1/D3Q2g=
=uNKg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----