Official eMule-Board: Question About Peercache Dependency - Official eMule-Board

Jump to content


Page 1 of 1

Question About Peercache Dependency

#1 User is offline   tHeWiZaRdOfDoS 

  • Man, what a bunch of jokers...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,402
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 25 April 2010 - 05:15 PM

I was removing PeerCache from my mod using preprocessor directives and I stumbled across this code in BaseClient.cpp:

Quote

// check if we should use this client to retrieve our public IP
if (theApp.GetPublicIP() == 0 && theApp.IsConnected() && m_fPeerCache)
SendPublicIPRequest();

Now I'm wondering why we depend on the PeerCache flag to ask for our public IP address... is there any special reason for that? Or is it because eMule supported the public IP request/answer extensions with the introduction of PeerCache and this is a simple yet not-so-elegant way to get to know whether the remote client supports our request packet?
0

#2 User is offline   Some Support 

  • Last eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yes
  • Posts: 3,412
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 25 April 2010 - 08:50 PM

The IP request query was introduced with peercache and only peercache really needed it at this point (iirc we only didn't know if we were connected to servers only with lowid), so yes thats why it is tied to this flag. Might have been indeed not such a great idea nowadays.
While the peercache code could be removed as it is unused currently, i hestitate to do so as it is a usefull technology and with nearly 100% if the network supporting it, it would work quite well too. Someone would just have to rewrite the cacheserver and some ISPs would have to implement it :) On the other hand we would have to do some adjustments in this case anyway which would need a new flag so...

#3 User is offline   Tuxman 

  • lizzie and prog-rock fanatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,505
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 25 April 2010 - 10:58 PM

View PostSome Support, on 25 April 2010 - 10:50 , said:

i hestitate to do so as it is a usefull technology

So was WebCache, actually. A technology which is not implemented because there is no server for our client-side code is not really useful IMO.

:unsure:
[ eMule beba ] :: v2.71 released ...
- feel the lightweight! - featuring Snarl support, the Client Analyzer and tits!
Coded by a Golden eMule Award winner and most people's favorite modder!
..........................................
Music, not muzak:
Progressive Rock :: my last.fm profile
..........................................
eMule user since 0.28 ...
-[ ... and thanks for all the fish! ]-
0

#4 User is offline   tHeWiZaRdOfDoS 

  • Man, what a bunch of jokers...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,402
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 26 April 2010 - 05:47 AM

Hm, so basically we could simply check for eMule version >= 0.43a (wow, it's been in there THAT long!?)
As written above I'm using preprocessor directives so I can re-enable it easily if it's ever supported, again.
I don't know how much sense it'd make but maybe we could tell all eMule users to write to their ISP and ask for PeerCache support.
0

#5 User is offline   Some Support 

  • Last eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yes
  • Posts: 3,412
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 26 April 2010 - 07:29 AM

Quote

So was WebCache, actually.

No it wasn't. WebCache tried to work against ISPs (by using its ressources which were not dedicated to this task), PeerCache works with them.

Quote

I don't know how much sense it'd make but maybe we could tell all eMule users to write to their ISP and ask for PeerCache support.

No, as i said first someone would have to develop the cacheserver, because the company who once invented Peercache abandoned it or is dead. And then there is still legal problems which proabably make ISPs stay away from any caching.

  • Member Options

Page 1 of 1

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users