> Do you want to arbitrarily prevent people from doing things like this, even > though the architecture makes it easy?
You are right, I got lost in my own argument and ended up arguing for something stupid - my bad. My original point was and still is that there is no good reason to use more than one port for user HTTP communication with the node. The argument that this would make life difficult for those who try to run fproxy as an FCP client doesn't make sense given that I can't think of any realistic scenario where someone might want to do that (it is much easier to connect to FProxy remotely from a client than it is to run FProxy on that client and access the node via FCP). 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/20020122/80f0c193/attachment.pgp>
