On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 10:24:58PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 12:37:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote: > <> > > If a servlet doesn't need to be in Fred's JVM, it should obviously be > > implemented as a FCP client. The only reason we made an exception for > > FProxy was because we knew that people would almost always want to run > > it with Fred, and so we should make it as resource efficient as possible > > (running it separately would require a separate JVM which would be a > > serious resource hog). > > It is absolutely ridiculous to wing-clip the system and make > generalizations like this because you think there are too many options > in the config file. Helpless users should never have to deal with the > configuration file directly anyways, and those working at a level where > they do edit config files will be able to understand a "You need not > bother about this part" comment.
Er, I wasn't talking about the configuration file in this email, I was talking about whether servlets should be implemented so that they can run outside the node's VM. 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/20020122/73f16598/attachment.pgp>
