Massive Refactoring

[biergaizi]

The current codebase is more than 10 years old and very difficult to maintain, I planned to do a massive refactoring. Where:

• The leecher's data is stored as C array, defines the characteristic of the leechers. And the main logic is going to be just routines to check against the data headers.
• Use regular expression for complicated checks.
• Use standard-compliance modern (C99/C++11) and clear code without warnings, and actively verify the code with static checking, such as gcc, clang and cppcheck.
• Integrate the data from ALL anti-Leech projects available from the Internet.
• Clear API designs where leecher checking would be a generic library usable for any application who follows, with some glue code to work with aMule of course.

But what I worry about are

• silently breaks some anti-Leecher checks, and get unnoticed
• lack of some context of historical background of a certain leechers and failed to understand the code.

@persmule What's your suggestions?

[persmule]

body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; } 

The current antiLeech.cpp in my project is actually the version of
chengr28's dlp for eMule, with a little amount of patch so that it
can be compiled on Unix, as my last commit log said:

   Accept new upstream release of chengr28's
    specialdlp. 

    Add some new workarounds to use antiLeech.cpp of original DLP for eMule with as few changes as possible.

Add a patch file for antiLeech.cpp of original DLP for eMule to apply necessary porting changes. Enable 'specialdlp' and 'All_VeryCD_Mod' of chengr28's specialdlp by default.

If it is supposed to be hardened, you could even not ask chengr28 to
do the refactoring, or file patches to him, but eMule Xtreme's
official team. Chengr28 and Persmule are all downstream developers
compared to them.

Refactoring on my or chengr28's project makes it difficult to merge
upstream features, so you should ask the origin directly.

I do never use M$WIN, so (1) I am not able to test your product, (2)
I do not know whether the cl.exe which Xtreme team uses comply with
c99 :-).

If Xtreme team do not accept your patches, you may then ask chengr28
and me to merge your changes, and further add pressure to them to
accept.

在 2016年08月09日 23:09, Tom Li 写道:

  The current codebase is more than 10 years old and very difficult to maintain, I planned to do a massive refactoring. Where:

• The leecher's data is stored as C array, defines the characteristic of the leechers. And the main logic is going to be just routines to check against the data headers.
• Use standard-compliance modern (C99) and clear code without warnings, and actively verify the code with static checking.
• Integrate the data from ALL anti-Leech projects available from the Internet.

But what I worry about are

• silently breaks some anti-Leecher checks, and get unnoticed
• lack of some context of historical background of a certain leechers and failed to understand the code.

@persmule What's your suggestions?

---

You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/persmule/amule-dlp.antiLeech/issues/2