On Tuesday 22 January 2002 14:30, Ian wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 02:19:59PM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote: ... > I am really starting to wonder whether all of this servlet stuff belongs > in the main config file, it seems like it is more configurable than > anyone could possibly wish for. What's the alternative? It is powerful. Breaking the config file up into multiple files seems like it would only add to the confusion. > ... > > I think we want to keep status on separate port from fproxy. Most status > > servlets need access to the Node reference. fproxy should be able to run > > externally from the Nodes JVM. > > Can't we have multiple servlets on the same port now? Yes but only for servlets in the same JVM. The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't have people expect fproxy and the status servlets to be on the same port, because that assumption would break if/when you decide to run fproxy in a separate JVM from the node.
-- gj -- Freesites (0.3) freenet:MSK at SSK@enI8YFo3gj8UVh-Au0HpKMftf6QQAgE/homepage// (0.4) freenet:SSK at npfV5XQijFkF6sXZvuO0o~kG4wEPAgM/homepage// _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
