On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 12:01:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote: > 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.
There's no way you can guess appropriate defaults for the configuration of servlet contexts, URIs, and classes. The only default is none. Btw, if you set console.params=<filename> instead of to a field-set, it will read the params field-set from that file. > > > 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? Someone installing fred and a public fproxy, or one on a multiuser system, will most definitely not want those console servlets running on that port. -tc _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
