Open paulrd opened 9 years ago
@paulrd Actually most part of link is protocol based except the (start-tcp-server)
, so maybe I can spend some time to refactor it into fully protocol based. I think it might be easier to hide I2P network code behind link than behind slacker.
I will investigate I2P networking in next few days if I have time.
I'd like to use slacker with I2P networking. This is a higher-latency socket-like (in fact it has Sockets) networking layer. It's synchronous / blocking however - unlike link / netty. I wonder if you can use a protocol for the link (https://github.com/sunng87/link) dependency. Then we could swap out link for I2P if we wanted to. This would likely take some work to wrap I2P to provide the same interface as link. I'm not sure... I just thought I would suggest this to see if it was a good idea. I'm currently making an I2P app, and it would be nice to use slacker for rpc instead of making my own.