Re: xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

[Tom Van den Panhuyzen <tomvdp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

>=20
> I have no problem with the principle of an app being able to act as a
hub=
,
> but I'm not sure about the mutex idea.
>=20
> The incompatibility between mutex and non .net app's worries me
somewhat.=
=20
>=20
> Personally I would prefer an approach where app's that can act as hubs
> regularly try to bind to the xpl port instead?=20
>=20

There is in fact no incompatibility between version V3.0 (with mutex)
and another version (non-mutex pre-V3.0 or another implementation of
xpl hub).
If a V3.0 app comes up and notices nobody is acting as a hub (because
no mutex was set), it will try to start a hub.  If this fails (because
the port is in use by another "old" hub) then that thread
gracefully
dies.  The app continues to behave like a normal client.
If a V3.0 app comes up and notices that some other app is already
holding the mutex it will not try to start a hub.  Instead it will
wait for the mutex to be released (read: the other app goes down) and
then grab the mutex and start a hub.


> > My own view (and I think this differs from Tom) is that it=20
> > should continue to accept traffic from the network by default.
>=20
> I would have to agree with this. Things like windows firewall already
> complicate troubleshooting particular issues, I think locking down to
the
> local ip by default just makes support more complicated?

Ok, I disagree here, but only slightly :-)  I see your point.  Yet
your argument that users should have firewalls *and*=A8that xpl should
be as easy as possible to configure does not add up.  If you can
configure a firewall, you can definitely configure V3.0 :-)  It is
choosing between listening to anything, to local traffic from the same
pc or to some specific address(es).
It's only my view.  Haven't been on this list long enough to even have
voting rights ;-)
I am glad I have a solution I can configure and deploy on my pc with 2
network cards of which one is connected to the internet.

Regards,
Tom