On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:15:19AM -0500, Brandon wrote: > > > within Fred. *Please*, Brandon and Steven, explain how these classes could > > be fleshed out! I'm not trying to flame bait you here -- I really don't > > see it. Specifics and actual code would be immensely helpful. So far all > > I have heard is "we could flesh it out more and it would be useful." > > Well replace it with a full implementation of the servlet API, of course. > There is a GPL one. It providers actual useful implementations of all the > methods in the API.
By this, I assume you mean, e.g., making the actual javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet class available. Well, okay, I suppose that could be useful because it will do HTTP decoding, gives you doGet() and doPost(), has some nice stuff for returning HTTP response headers, etc. I wish you'd made this more clear a long time ago -- the way that servlets were put into 0.3 Fred made it really difficult to understand what you guys were arguing, since it's exactly equivalent to my one-method plugin interface in 0.4, modulo bloat. I should point out that by dropping all that servlet stuff and going to the one-method interface in 0.4, we are NOT wasting ANY of the work you've done on fproxy or the EOF plugins, _because_ of the equivalence b/t the 0.3 servlet approach and my one-method interface. Porting them to the 0.4 interface should take less than 5 minutes -- you just make it implement Freenet.FreenetServlet instead of subclassing GenericServlet, and you use an InputStream and OutputStream instead of FreenetServletRequest and FreenetServletResponse. -- # tavin cole # # "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that # man doesn't have to experience it." # # - Max Frisch _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
