|
Register | FAQ | The Twelve Commandments | Members List | Calendar | Arcade | Find the Best VPN | Today's Posts | Search |
General Gnutella Development Discussion For general discussion about Gnutella development. |
| LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
I see no future for thi 0.7 proposal To me, I don't think this 0.7 proposal adds anything, apart from breaking the existing 0.6 protocol and building a new one. Let me take a few examples to illustrate my point: 1. The 3-way handshake works. It is necessary for Ultrapeer negotiation with gentle redirection of an ultrapeer to leaf status. It is necessary for Gnet traffic compression negotiation. I understand it can be done with a 2x2-way handshake, but you criticize the 3-way as being complex, so a 4-way is even more complex. As to simply moving to a 2-way because it is simpler to implement, this is a valid point. However, given the need for 4-way exchanges somtimes, you have to handle exceptions anyway. So let's leave the handshaking as a 3-way process. 2. GUID tagging. This mixes a few concepts. You should have a look at my GGEP "Q" extension proposal, which I have posted on the GDF: It clearly separates between atributes that make sense during a query, and those that make sense during a reply. Moreover, the "Q" extension is far more extensible that the bits in the GUID. Finally, don't forget that the GUID is not sent in a query. 3. Renaming of Ultrapeers to something else. Well, I call them Ultranodes. I don't need a protocol 0.7 to call them the way I want. Everyone understand that Ultranodes and Ultrapeers are the same thing. However, not everything you propose is to throw away. It's just that the premisses of your proposal are wrong, and you target your efforts on things that are superfical inconveniences (but would be a pain to backout) instead of moving forward and constructing. Live and let learn! Raphael |
| |||
Re: Gnutella Protocoll v0.7 Proposal Quote:
|
| |||
Re: Re: Gnutella Protocoll v0.7 Proposal Quote:
Good riddance. |
| ||||
Quote:
http://mrgone4662.dns2go.com/forums/...s=&threadid=16 Morgwen |
| |||
Why did you call it "General Gnutella Development Discussion" when there is actually no development?? You complained that it took over 1 year for v0.6 to be spread out on the net? Why do you think the client-developers inmplemented the ability of online-updates in their programs? Even if a user isn't interested in the new version, he would probably click on "yes, update" just to get rid of the annoying message that a new version is available . And if you make banners telling about a new protocol version "new, faster protocol v0.7 supported" it would work fine. (faster sounds good for all the average AOL-users , and its a little bit faster anyway ) just my opinion.... nils.lw |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Proposal for development of Gnutella (hashs) | Unregistered | General Gnutella Development Discussion | 61 | April 17th, 2002 09:35 AM |
My Proposal for XoloX!!! | Unregistered | User Experience | 1 | February 6th, 2002 09:11 AM |
What does 'Gnutella v0.6 protocoll' mean? | Moak | LimeWire Beta Archives | 0 | December 12th, 2001 11:03 PM |
---a Radical Proposal--- | Unregistered | General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion | 0 | September 21st, 2001 01:08 PM |
protocol extension proposal | Unregistered | General Gnutella Development Discussion | 3 | September 16th, 2001 03:00 PM |