On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 04:57:42PM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > > 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. > > There are basically two kinds of servlets that are important to us.
Agreed, I think this was why the debate was getting complicated. > Those that need to get the "freenet.node.Node" attribute, and those that > only need "freenet.client.ClientFactory". You seem to be saying that > the latter should be illegalized except for fproxy. If we believed that > we never would have gone to the trouble of implementing a Java Servlets > container. This debate has wandered off-track, perhaps my fault. The core issue is whether the status stuff should run on port 8888, I think it should. GJ made the point that this could make life more difficult for people who try to run FProxy externally, I responded that people would rarely if-ever want to do this, and thus it shouldn't be a factor in our decision making. 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/de45ffb4/attachment.pgp>
