Thanks Jim, A lot of things don't appear to make much sense when viewed out of context. Thanks for providing some. I'm glad it's back in too. Regards, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Withers Two things are infinite: the universe and [EMAIL PROTECTED] human stupidity, and I'm not sure about http://www.pobox.com/~bwit the universe. - Albert Einstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK ----- Version 3.1 http://www.geekcode.com GCS d- s: a+ C++ UO++ P L++ E--- W++ N++ o-- w++ O M V- PS PE Y+ PGP t+ 5 X++ r* tv+ b++ DI++ D--- G e++ h--- r+++ y+++ ----- END GEEK CODE BLOCK ----- On Friday, March 05, 1999 7:03 PM, maus [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > Speaking as the guy who removed that code, the answer is: it was both. > > We had people writing to us complaining that their srun program was > falling over, and demanding that we fix it. (Naturally, they weren't > offering to pay, or willing to purchase the server we were trying to > sell). There were quite a few people using it as a full-bore webserver, > despite the "warning, not for production use" spraypainted on the side. > Go figure. > > We also discovered a couple of security holes around the same time. > > Put that together with an intense desire to not enhance the product > further, and you come to the obvious conclusion. (It was one of the four > products I was supposed to be working on right then. Ouch. Sleep > optional. And all of them free.) > > I am glad it's back in though. > > This historical by-the-way brought to you by: > Jim > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, James Duncan Davidson wrote: > > > > Thanks, I'll try 2.1. I'm curious, if file serving was removed from 2.0 > > > for security reasons, why was it reinstalled in 2.1? I'm not complaining, > > > mind you, I personally feel it should've been there all along. I was just > > > wondering about the change of heart. > > > > I don't think it was security reasons. My understanding is that people > > were expecting the JSDK to be a fully supported webserver when it was > > not. We have a fully supported product (JWS), so the decision was made > > to only have the JSDK serve servlets and not files to make the > > distinction clear. Of course, if a web server can't serve files, it's > > pretty much useless for development use, so for 2.1 it's back in. We'll > > just make it very clear in the readme that this is not a commercial > > product, but a reference implementation. > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body > of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST". > > Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html > Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html > LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html ___________________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST". Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html
