Re: [Blocks-development] V0.16 progress

[Blat F. <pet...@ho...>]

>From: lu...@et...
>To: Blat Froop <pet...@ho...>,        
>blo...@li...
>Subject: Re: [Blocks-development] V0.16 progress
>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:55:50 -0400
>
>* Blat Froop wrote:
> > At the moment the cache is just a big FIFO ring which isnt
> > as bad as it sounds. The distributed nature of Blocks means
> > that files which expire will get replicated due to routing
> > if they are really popular, and the cacheing system itself
> > means that LRU wouldnt necessarily favour the most popular
> > files... just the most popular node for that file.
>
>Hurm.  Too lazy to check the code:  Will my machine cache something that
>it already has in cache?

Nope, but once the original expires and is overwritten it can
be cached again.

>
> > This is a good issue for debate. Are sticky files a
> > good idea?
>
>Quoting from an old boss:  "Any feature that can't be turned off is a bug."
>
>
>So, when do we get the todo list up on sourceforge? :-)

I tried to mess around with that sourceforge thing but didnt
get anywhere quickly. I'd rather keep stuff on the web page
unless its simple to set up.

ttfn

PG.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com