On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 08:07:30PM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 01:41:17AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote: < > > > Can we use some matching of the keytype bytes instead of the length of > > the keys to determine this? It is not ok to assume that that keys will > > always have any length. Any distribution of the keys should be based > > only on the first single or half byte anyways. > > I just mentioned the current 23-byte length by way of explanation, not > as a rule to depend on. The right rule would be to have fake keys end > in 0000, which iirc is true for those resulting from a manual --seed. > I think it must be your announcing code that is putting the 16-byte > fake keys in there that don't end in 0000 - ?
Yes, I think it is. Looking over the code, I'm pretty sure it won't break the protocol to add 0000 when the key is generated, but I don't feel confident enough to commit ATM. > > Also, wouldn't it be nicer if we got this on the same port as the http > > access? It really needs some sort of authorization, and so should fit > > with http based administration access. Using the same visualization > > stuff for the Diagnostics data would be nice as well (feel free to add > > more diagnostics fields). > > You can't cleanly put it on the same port as fproxy since fproxy sucks > up the whole URI, thus defeating the mechanism for running multiple > servlets on the same port. So you'd have to hack it into fproxy itself. Yeah, I know there is a problem with this. What would be preferable is that if we allowed URIs starting with "?" to not be eaten by fproxy, I don't suppose this works with servlets... > -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
