On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 03:26:15PM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote: > > I am really starting to wonder whether all of this servlet stuff belongs > > in the main config file, it seems like it is more configurable than > > anyone could possibly wish for. > What's the alternative? It is powerful. Breaking the config file up into > multiple files seems like it would only add to the confusion.
The alternative is to have intelligent defaults specified in the servlets so that stuff doesn't need to be specified in the .conf file unless someone wants to do something unusual. > > Can't we have multiple servlets on the same port now? > Yes but only for servlets in the same JVM. The point I was trying to make is > that we shouldn't have people expect fproxy and the status servlets to be on > the same port, because that assumption would break if/when you decide to run > fproxy in a separate JVM from the node. I see, although realistically in what scenarios are people likely to run FProxy separately these days? Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020122/7c385cf4/attachment.pgp>
