Sure, please go ahead. :)
Cheers,
Trustin
On Nov 20, 2007 10:11 AM, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a follow up to my previous email. I could take a look at adding this
> feature as well.
>
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2007 8:10 PM, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 18, 2007 7:46 PM,
As a follow up to my previous email. I could take a look at adding this
feature as well.
On Nov 19, 2007 8:10 PM, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2007 7:46 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > On Nov 19, 2007 9:40 AM, steview <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Nov 18, 2007 7:46 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Nov 19, 2007 9:40 AM, steview <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Trustin,
> > It appears from the code that set addresses can only be used while the
> > acceptor is not running (e.g as a start up config) - can yo
On Nov 19, 2007 10:45 AM, steview <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Trustin,
> If you could add that feature that would be great -
Let me try to add that feature in my spare time. Any patches are
welcome, too. I think this feature should be included in the first RC
of 2.0.0 at least.
> There ma
Hi Trustin,
If you could add that feature that would be great -
There majority of the dynamic connections will share the same handler - does
this suggest another solution?
If you could point me in another direction in the api that would be welcome
- in case I have missed something
regards
Ste
Hi Steve,
On Nov 19, 2007 9:40 AM, steview <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Trustin,
> It appears from the code that set addresses can only be used while the
> acceptor is not running (e.g as a start up config) - can you confirm if that
> is correct?.
Yes. If there's demand for dynamically chan
Hi Trustin,
It appears from the code that set addresses can only be used while the
acceptor is not running (e.g as a start up config) - can you confirm if that
is correct?.
I am not sure that stopping, adding the new ports and restarting the
acceptor is a reasonable approach. I am after a scalabl
Hi Steve,
On Nov 19, 2007 6:15 AM, steview <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have a requirement similar to the following
>
> A client connects on a well known port and then is issued a directive to
> another port to connect to (all this is tcp/ip based).
>
> This can be a growing list of por
