> Ed Tomlinson wrote: >> On Monday 15 May 2006 10:27, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >>> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:09:51PM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote: >>> >>>>> Ed Tomlinson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday 13 May 2006 10:04, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> exit? >>>>>>> >>>>>> I would like that much better. >>>>>> >>>>> So EXIT would close the socket and QUIT would shutdown the node? Or >>>>> the other way around? >>>>> >>>> if it's supposed to shut down the node, use SHUTDOWN (like in *nix to >>>> bring something completely down) >>>> to close the socket use EXIT (like sh/dosshell) or QUIT (like 95% of >>>> programs) >>>> >>>> what's the problem? :) >>>> 0,02EUR >>>> >>> shutdown might end up being typed on the console? I suppose that's not a >>> real problem as shutdown on its own won't bring the system down, even if >>> the user is root. >>> >> >> Freenet uses java. So the above depends on the OS. For instance, >> shutdown alone is >> enought to stop an IBM VM based os (which does run java...) >> > So don't run Freenet "as root". :) > > Honestly, it looks to me like the "QUIT closes the socket, SHUTDOWN takes > down the node" approach is favored by most who have spoken, but then I > favor this myself. > > > Should we put this to an informal vote? > > Candidate A: "EXIT closes the socket, QUIT takes down the node" > Candidate B: "QUIT closes the socket, SHUTDOWN takes down the node"
For what it's worth, I vote SHUTDOWN for taking down the node. EXIT and QUIT are both common for closing a console/connection, so allow either for closing the socket.
