[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r16833 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node

[David Sowder]

I'd have to extensively review the current PeerNode code to make sure my 
understanding isn't outdated, but I prefer the current variable names 
which contain the idea of their value being verified and aren't mixed up 
directly with the idea of routability.  OTOH, I'm probably a little 
biased, they being originally my variable names IIRC.

Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On Thursday 03 January 2008 16:29, Robert Hailey wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>>> Please restore the original version. It looks like it was correct  
>>>> after all,
>>>> and the problem is not fetching ARKs when verified*=true.
>>>
>>> If you really want me to, I certainly will, but... if you and nextgens  
>>> agree that it is benign to active connections, and in my reasoning  
>>> prevents a deadlock for long disconnections... why? I think that it  
>>> would be more useful to simply rename the identifiers to be more  
>>> intuitive until the ark problem is solved to your satisfaction (e.g.  
>>> as David said he may).
>>
>> No, IMHO we should unconditionally recompute verified*, as we did until
>> recently. And not fetching ARKs if it's out of date is insane, which 
>> I've
>> fixed in r16861. Please make it unconditionally recompute, and 
>> re-test to see
>> if there is still a problem.
>
> Restored in r16862, any objection to new function/variable names to 
> suite the newer purpose?
>
> updateShouldDisconnectNow          ->  updateVersionRoutablity
> verifiedIncompatibleOlderVersion   ->  unroutableOlderVersion
> verifiedIncompatibleNewerVersion   ->  unroutableNewerVersion
> isVerifiedIncompatibleOlderVersion ->  isUnroutableOlderVersion
> isVerifiedIncompatibleNewerVersion ->  isUnroutableNewerVersion
>
> And remove/change old comments: e.g. "on a relevant incoming 
> handshake" (ln#85), "breaking the meaning of 
> verifiedIncompable[Older|Newer]Version" (ln#2794)?