Yes, patience is one of the things MaidSafe teach us! It helps if we can do so though, because it might not seem much to publish a list of tasks beforehand, it involves quite a lot of effort that takes resources MaidSafe don’t have to spare. I’d love to see this too, but I’d rather prioritise letting the developers get on in the way that’s most efficient for them.
Partly creating and maintaining a list, partly communicating it, but then explaining it. Then as it is revised, things added or removed as well as completed this can become a never ending task for somebody.
Yes, we refactor something to fix every bug The connection pool is causing issues and is extra code that makes assumptions that it should not. The fix is to have each connection handle its own lifespan and not have a thing in the middle. I would hope to see the end of connection lost being as frequent and unexpected with this, or at least show us where and exactly why it happens, allowing that code flow to consider retry etc.
@jlpell Guess I’m most curious what it’s purpose is.
Seeing it separated out and such.
As it is in the code we have that kind of verbiage in the code with things like section chains which are what evolved from data chains I believe but this one is new and I know there are some things coming along and wasn’t sure if perhaps it was related…
Yes that’s it @Nigel it’s all lingo from data chains and now the Section Chain. So SectionChain is a linked list where a key is signed by the previous key. We don’t identify who made up that key except in the current block and that is where we link the SAP (Section Authority Provider).
The SAP tells us the members of the group (Elders) plus their key and this section key part as well as identifying the prefix (as the section keys are not related to prefix and require a mapping). This SAP is signed by the previous key.
Would be interested to know beyond SafeId for the individual, what might become possible for groups shared access to data. I don’t know, if that’s a matter of iterating a shared password on each change and whether there are simple options for this. I don’t know then if necessarily a member retains access to what they had access to, in the event they fall outside that group later, or whether this is less fundamental and more a layer on top managing this.
I’m just speculating without getting traction to be sure of atm… so, I don’t know if one option is some mutable list of members and individual knocks the door that is the list and is granted access or not.