[Kget] eDonkey integration

[Dario Massarin]

On Monday 08 August 2005 18:12, you wrote:
> Dario Massarin wrote:
> > On Thursday 16 June 2005 13:54, Petter Stokke wrote:
> >>I'm interested, and you're right, it's probably very easy to do using
> >>libkmldonkey as it is, but I can't find the make_kget_cool branch
> >> anywhere. Where have you hidden it? :)
> >
> > Have you found it?   :-)
> >
> > What's your plans? Now I have some spare time and I would really love to
> > cooperate with you.
>
> Problem is, now I'm really busy with work. :)
>
> I'm still interested in seeing if it can be done, I just don't know when
> I'll be able to work on it. Some spare time coming up in a month or two, I
> hope.

I see. I think I can wait.

> Are you sure the APIs are compatible, though? MLDonkey is sort of the same
> thing as KGet, currently - a download manager. How well would it work to
> attempt to integrate one as a kind of sub-manager within the other?
> MLDonkey is basically something you connect to which tells you "I'm working
> on these files at the moment, and here's what's happening to them in real
> time," in addition to doing searches and accepting URLs. And the problem
> is, MLDonkey tries to be everything - HTTP, BitTorrent, etc. - and does
> everything really poorly, except for ed2k. Generally, it's a mess and I'm
> not sure we'd even _want_ to integrate it into KDE, but it's possible as
> long as KGet can be generic enough to handle it. I figure that part's
> mostly your job. :)
>
> I'd recommend only using it to deal with ed2k downloads, in any case, as I
> indicated above. Preferably, what we'd want to do is pull the network code
> out of eMule or something similar and put it into KGet on the same level as
> the BitTorrent plugin, if we really want ed2k support, but I suspect the
> legal team would be really displeased with that - as it is, there's concern
> enough already just over KDE hosting KMLDonkey, which technically isn't a
> P2P client at all.

The best solution should in fact be the second one, that is, importing the 
emule code (or whatever) inside kget. Obviously this comes at a cost of the 
time necessary to do this.

I don't understand the problem with the legal team. How could it be despleased 
about kget integrating ed2k?

> Please keep me updated, and I'll be able to at least throw ideas in your
> general direction, even if I can't really produce any code yet.

Ok.

Best wishes,
	Dario