Re: [Gzz] Raw pools?

[Benja Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 08:00:26PM +0100, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
>  
>
> > As one of the important principles of Storm, I see what I call the 
> > "persistency commitment" (which I should peg ;-) ):
> >    
>
> We should probably PEG the basic ideology of Storm as a whole:

Can we s/ideology/philosophy/? :-)

>         - persistent blocks: operations
>                 - get a block's bits EXACTLY or "sorry, can't get them" -answer
>                 - store a block, get an ID
> 	- pointers 
>
>         - ...

I think we should have several related PEGs for these.

> I didn't mean that raw pools should be equal to normal storm pools.
> The raw blocks would *NOT* have storm ids and would not be addressed in
> that way. 

Ok, I guess we can see my proposal as a way to implement yours, then :-)

(Let's not call these 'blocks,' then, though. 'Chunks' or something else 
that hasn't a meaning in Storm yet would be more appropriate.)

> > > E.g. for xupdf, this would be vital for other people to be able
> > > to use the demo.
> > >
> > >      
> > We have the canonical blocks (with just the Content-Type header); since 
> > you have to call a program to put something inside Storm anyway (unless 
> > you're going to calculate the SHA-1 hash yourself), I don't see the 
> > difference it would make at this point in time.
> >    
>
> It *does* make a big difference: the SHA-1 is not the same that someone
> just obtaining the file would calculate. That's a big issue because
> most SHA-1 -content-based-retrieval systems will *NOT* have the
> same Content-TYpe header.

I still don't agree that this makes a big difference *at this point in 
time*. So far, I have *never* entered a SHA-1 in a 
content-based-retrieval system. Besides, if the papers used in xupdf 
were available in one, that would be illegal, while they're also legally 
available from the respective web sites *we* got them from-- except if 
the copyright holders would make them available there, which isn't 
paricularly likely.

I'm saying this to explain why I'm still not convinced we should change 
Storm at this time. Can you explain why you feel this is so important 
right now?

Would it, btw, be legal to provide a download script for the papers, 
like Debian provided for Microsoft's web fonts?

> > Let me put it like this: It has broad enough applicability that I'm 
> > thinking this *might* just be good enough to warrant the burden on 
> > future implementations.
> >    
>
> Great, let's PEG it.

Ok. Who's going to?
- Benja