This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 83 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 83 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
bear wrote: > I think that would imply excessive reliance on a single > site and server. And this is sometimes a problem. Aside > from the situation becoming such that the entire community > would be hosed if a single server should go down, it would > impose a significant burden (and bandwidth costs) on the > maintainers of that site. The point is not that it's a particular server. It's that there's a naming structure that _might_ be backed by a server. Right now it's just a name, and that's all it needs to be. You can use it as a key into a local table, if that's what you like. Later, there might be a server, if that's useful and there's interest. A URI doesn't have to be dereferenceable to be useful. But even if you want a server behind the URI, there are all kinds of techniques for spreading the load out. Multi-hosting comes to mind, and has been successfully used by a number of free-software projects. So I don't buy the "excessive reliance" argument. > Are you prepared to run the server and do the indexing and > the archiving and mirroring and suck up the bandwidth costs? Hmm... that's very nearly an ad hominem attack. I'm not interested in fighting -- I thought we were having a useful technical discussion. Peace, Chris