[Debtags-devel] Some p2p protocols for filetransfer::

Martin Spasov mspasov at techno-link.com
Sat Nov 5 23:17:34 UTC 2005


Justin B Rye wrote:

>Martin Spasov wrote:
>  
>
>>+Tag: filetransfer::dc
>>+Description: Direct Connect p2p protocol
>>+
>>+Tag: filetransfer::torrent
>>+Description: BitTorrent p2p protocol
>>+
>>+Tag: filetransfer::edonkey
>>+Description: Edonkey/Overnet/Emule p2p protocol
>>+
>>+Tag: filetransfer::nap
>>+Description: Napster p2p protocol
>>+
>>+Tag: filetransfer::soulseek
>>+Description: Soulseek p2p protocol
>>    
>>
>
>We certainly seem to be short on p2p protocols.  But...
>* Is it possible we could get by with a single ::p2p tag?  With
>	thousands of packages to classify, it seems unbalanced to
>	create categories with memberships as tiny as ::soulseek.
>  
>
Well, I don't think that p2p is enough descriptive, we have a wide range
of p2p software, some multi protocol, some supporting only one protocol.
More than 50% of the trafic this days is p2p.

>* Why put them under the filetransfer:: facet?  All it contains is
>	duplicates of a few protocol:: tags, without even covering
>	all of the protocols usable for transferring files.
>
>(This is a gripe I've mentioned before: redundant duplicate tags
>like filetransfer::http and protocol::http just distort package
>resemblance scores.  I'd like to see the filetransfer:: facet
>abolished.)
>
>  
>
It seems reasonable. I'm new to debtags, and just trying to follow (and
extend) existing facets available. I'll try to read the archives
tomorrow, and really get an opinion on this one :)

>>+Tag: filetransfer::gnutella
>>+Description: Gnutella 1/2 p2p protocol
>>    
>>
>
>One last thing: is this "Gnutella p2p protocol (v1 or v2)"?  Or is
>there really such a thing as a half p2p protocol?
>  
>

Heh, ok, this was in a hurry. I meant version 1 and 2. Probably just
gnutella is fine :)

---
Regards: Martin Spasov




More information about the Debtags-devel mailing list