[Mono-devel-list] Idea: Bittorrent and Mono.

[Marcos Carneiro da Rocha]

On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 12:32, Andrew Craven wrote:
> Marcos Carneiro da Rocha wrote:
> 
> > Hi everybody,
> > 
> > i'm watching this thread about bittorrent and mono and i have some
> > questions:
> > 
> > - why implement bittorrent ni mini webserver ??? performance ??? 
> > with asp.net it would be more flexible, because anyone could customize
> > easily
> 
> Absolutely, the tracker is well suited to being implemented in ASP.NET. 
> But the reason that BitTorrent provides its own mini-server is to avoid 
> having to 'install' (which admittedly isn't hard) the files on a 
> webserver - you just run it, and it works. A proper .NET implementation 
> of BT should (IMO) not rely on ASP.NET solely for providing the tracker, 
> as it forces people to be running a webserver. Classical BT does not 
> make you do that.
> 
> Maybe I'm getting confused about the difference between a client for BT 
> and a class library to provide BT functionality, but in order to serve a 
> file with BT you need a tracker - and a Mono implementation should 
> provide this.
> 
> > - will it be implemented as a .dll so anyone at any plataform (mono or
> > ms .net) could use that ???
> 
> Ideally, yes. But remember what you asked above - a DLL on its own would 
> not have the ability to become a tracker - you'd need an ASPX and the 
> other ASP.NET stuff to do this. I personally thing it would be at least 
> three assemblies, one to do the main core BT stuff, one standalone 
> tracker, and an ASP.NET tracker.
> 
> > - to implement it we will have to implement many network components, so
> > why don't we implement separate network components that extends .net
> > framework ???
> 
> I don't see why - it's simple socket stuff. If we did a mini webserver 
> for trackers that would be a bit more work, but I don't see what this 
> has to do with SMTP, SSH, or whatever.
> 
> > with this we can implement extensions easily like: snmp, ssh, ftp,
> > telnet, etc. or implement some applications that use these extensions
> > like: emule client, email clients (pop, imap, smtp, etc), nntp client,
> > nfs client, smb client, ntp client or any kind of application server
> > that uses network.
> 
> Not really. Although these are all networked protocols, that's the only 
> thing they have in common. What exactly would you propose to implement 
> in order to make these 'easy'? We already have sockets.

you are right that with sockets we can do anything but why not implement
specific classes ???
for example:

whith a specific bittorrent class i can use it to implement a bittorent
client to download file at internet, or i can use it to implement a
special application like software distribution in my organization. i
think that would be faster and more reliable then yum and apt-get.

i'm talking about network specific classes that i can use to implement
any king of application using gtk# or anything else.

i was thinking about a network class that implements ftp, tfp, ssh,
snmp, imap, pop, smtp, nntp, etc. protocols, instead of one class per
network protocol.

Thanks,

Marcos

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>