> > Have you looked at the stuff I've checked in under jcs/servlet? Does > that meet your needs? I have no problem with moving it under > jcs/admin/servlet -- anybody else have a vote? >
I'm looking at it. You just added it without a vote, why would you need a vote to change it? Do you think it would be better to have an admin package? I do. Otherwise when we create something else we'll have another package on the root and so on. It will get messy. > > We should try getting the javagroups auxiliary back in the main code > base. > > The project is weaker without all the auxiliary options. > > I think it is more important to offer a few stable auxiliaries versus a > wide variety. Yes, and we'll be able to get a stable build out faster . . . I like the javagroups aux, so lets get it back in, but if > we have that and the TCP is there a need for UDP, xml-rpc, or http? The only reason I like the http is that for people with strict internal firewalls, this might be the easiest thing for them to use, since they can just deploy a servlet. I had this problem once and that's where the http auxiliary came from, though this was long ago. It shouldn't be the same as the admin servlet though. I like the separation. It is cleaner this way. Cheers, Aaron
