> I'm looking at it. You just added it without a vote, why would you need a > vote to change it?
I'm just trying to encourage more participation =] I want people's opinions! > 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. Sounds good to me. I'll move it. > Yes, and we'll be able to get a stable build out faster . . . Exactly! > 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. I kinda figured that was the motivation, and it scares me. If you want to reintroduce http I won't block it, but it seems like we'll have to maintain something that supports a use case that is very rare and less than ideal anyway. If we just leave it in experimental someone can always grab it and whip it into shape if they find themselves in that situation. (I'm in principle opposed to using http to circumvent firewall rules. It just means I [in my occasional role as netsec guy] have to use CBAC and NBAR and other annoying shtuff to ensure that only what I expect is going over port 80). -- jt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
