Re: [Mldonkey-users] 2.00+3

[MLdonkey]

>  As an observer of donkeybot / emule / edonkey wars with the edonkey
>  developpers, I _don't want_ mldonkey overnet implementation being blamed by
>  anyone for disturbing the network. This is the reason for my first message
>  on this list ("open to overnet patch ?"), and for example for the client_md4
>  random generation. I beleive that we can get a efficient and non-intrusive
>  complete overnet implementation, that's my _first_ goal :-)

Don't expect to win... Even if your code is the best one, there are always
people that don't understand network limitations and trade-offs, and
who will find a false reason to blame you. When developping mldonkey a
few months ago, I received complains from people because it was
attacking their computer: 1 request/hour was already too much for them.

>  I beleive that mldonkey has a great future, and I like the overlay network
>  idea. Like you, I think that before thinking to gain CVS access, a first
>  step would be to see if my work on overnet (in a coding style / algorithm
>  efficiency point of view) fits your needs.

Well, your code looks already good enough for that. The real problem
is whether you want to continue after this first step or not.

>  For example, it seems that I non-intentionally removed the ip_black_list
>  test in overnet from pango's work. It is on my TODO list for patch3.

Normally, it was already fixed (at least, one of these tests appears
in the current code). There was also a problem with reading IP
addresses from the configuration file that was fixed (the IP field was
not used, and the port one was used twice...).

- MLDonkey