Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > FWIW, I've recently rewritten the handling of allowedHosts parameters > > for both FCP and generic servlets, so that one can now use x.x.x.x/y > > notation for specifying subnets. This has the effect of making the > > allowedHosts code even more IPv4 dependent, but increases its > Yeah, well, IPv6 should be a completely separate transport. Any IPv6 > zealots here, feel free to code it, all the code is in Transport*.java > and transport/.
This is true, but in a perfect world, the code for allowing hosts shouldn't exactly be transport dependent. As well, this dependency is not essential to the structure of the code; meaning that there's no way for a compiler to find this dependency and fix it. At the moment, if IPv6 were implemented completely as a transport, any incoming IPv6 connections would fail the allowedHosts checks in a horrible way as the code tries to cast the connection address to a tcpAddress. Just a little thing for someone better at java to code around. Thelema -- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raabu and Piisu GPG 1024D/36352AAB fpr:756D F615 B4F3 BFFC 02C7 84B7 D8D7 6ECE 3635 2AAB _______________________________________________ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
