> > > 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.
I think it will much more than rarely used. Sometimes you don't have a choice when the network people don't understand the application and seem bent on blocking the software. It is a bit inefficient and I'd hate to tax someone's servlet engine when there are alternatives. It would be much better if the user explained why they need another port opened . . . If we just leave it in experimental someone can > always grab it and whip it into shape if they find themselves in that > situation. Sounds like a good idea. I'd like if the experimental could also have some kind of extras.jar. . . Aaron
