Re: Re: strengths and weaknesses of Gnutella; was: Gnutella 3

Am Samstag, 27. Februar 2010 10:29:50 schrieb [email protected]:
> The real problem is that of agreeing on search semantics.  For instance,
> if I search for "foo bar" today in Gnutella, I may get "foo.data" and
> "bar.data" out of some servents, which is wrong.  From gtk-gnutella you
> would only get "foo_bar.data" or "bar_foo.data", but both words would need
> to be present.

Which other servents do reply with this? 
And are they spammers? 

> I guess this is another strong argument for having a standard library that
> would implement the low level semantics.  The challenge would then be to
> get people to implement the library in various languages (for instance a
> java library is totally useless to me) and make sure that all library
> implementations conform to a standard.

Wouldn't a clearly defuned standard with pseudocode be more useful at the 
current state (given that we have no library for the hard stuff)?  

> However, let's this right now: I'm not a big fan of 3rd-party libraries
> unless they are very well written or unavoidable.  For instance,
> gtk-gnutella depends only on a few libraries: GTK, glib, xml2, zlib, tls
> and of course, c. Everything else was written by the developers.  We even
> wrote replacements of badly written library functions or functions not
> fitting our needs (one example that comes to mind here is malloc()).

You wrote the memory allocation yourself? That's pretty deep…

Besides: I did a threading error - if you answer to the brainstorm, could you 
use the subject of this message? 

Best wishes, 
Arne


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]