[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Namespaces / GNML

From: Igor Wronsky
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Namespaces / GNML
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:16:04 +0200 (EET)

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Tom Barnes-Lawrence wrote:

>  Programs such as gnunet-gtk (which is still buggy, btw),

Oh, really? ;) And where's the detailed bug report, or a
patch, even? :(

And about GNML, though I don't personally much oppose it,
I know I won't be interested at all in coding it, so you
can count one of the lesser devs out. Anything with words
like "*ml" or "render" in it sounds too complicated to me.

Besides, anything that in the end requires gnunetd just
to read/write file blocks can be coded as an external
client, without gnunet itself knowing anything about what
goes on with the blocks it transfers. However megalomanic
or insane html/xml/crapml/etc schemes can be built ...
by those who have interests of doing so.

>  Anyway, there was the idea I'd had. I don't know whether there would be
> any sense in using both schemes or not, there doesn't seem to be a
> total overlap in the problem domains, so I'm throwing it into the
> discussion before the discussion closes.

If I read correctly, the only major non-overlapping part is the
GNML, quite equivalent to the way we were proposing to do a similar
thing with binary structs? 'Pro-binary' arguments would probably
include things like efficiency, compactness and ease of parsing.
Things with *ML are of course much more trendy, buzzword
compatible, perhaps extendable, and you can sell things with
them - but for that we'd need a gnunet marketing division anyway
and we don't have one.

There hasn't been much discussion. Either the proposal is
too good, or nobody is really interested in it.  :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]