On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:15:19AM -0500, Brandon wrote:
>
> > within Fred. *Please*, Brandon and Steven, explain how these classes could
> > be fleshed out! I'm not trying to flame bait you here -- I really don't
> > see it. Specifics and actual code would be immensely helpful. So far all
> > I have heard is "we could flesh it out more and it would be useful."
>
> Well replace it with a full implementation of the servlet API, of course.
> There is a GPL one. It providers actual useful implementations of all the
> methods in the API.
By this, I assume you mean, e.g., making the actual
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet class available. Well, okay, I suppose that
could be useful because it will do HTTP decoding, gives you doGet() and
doPost(), has some nice stuff for returning HTTP response headers, etc.
I wish you'd made this more clear a long time ago -- the way that servlets
were put into 0.3 Fred made it really difficult to understand what you guys
were arguing, since it's exactly equivalent to my one-method plugin interface
in 0.4, modulo bloat.
I should point out that by dropping all that servlet stuff and going to the
one-method interface in 0.4, we are NOT wasting ANY of the work you've done
on fproxy or the EOF plugins, _because_ of the equivalence b/t the 0.3
servlet approach and my one-method interface. Porting them to the 0.4
interface should take less than 5 minutes -- you just make it implement
Freenet.FreenetServlet instead of subclassing GenericServlet, and you
use an InputStream and OutputStream instead of FreenetServletRequest and
FreenetServletResponse.
--
# tavin cole
#
# "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that
# man doesn't have to experience it."
#
# - Max Frisch
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
