Neal H. Walfield wrote:
This works in the case where you want to override all pf servers.
This case is important. Also important is the ability to override a
single pf server in a similar manner.
A couple comments on the code: please follow the GNU coding standards.
Second, I assume that you le
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:26:19PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm creating the proxy of the process server. Hopefully, it's not too
> difficult.
Well, if you run into serious problems, you can postpone this for now
and work on the other stuff... But I hope you can get
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:41:17AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Juni 2008 19:08:00 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > Something feeling intuitive depends solely on previous experience.
> > It is *always* subjective.
>
> There are usability people saying quite the contrary.
At Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:44:51 +0200,
zhengda wrote:
> I wonder if it's really necessary to override a single pf server.
When porting pppd, I did this regularly; I used an alternative pfinet
server but continued to use the default pipe server. I don't see why
you think it would be normal to want to
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:56:03PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> I want to write a proxy of the proc server (proc_proxy), so I can
> provide a pseudo master device port to the translator without changing
> its code.
>
> My first idea was to create a message server which handles all RPCs in
> proces
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:44:51PM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> Neal H. Walfield wrote:
>> This works in the case where you want to override all pf servers.
>> This case is important. Also important is the ability to override a
>> single pf server in a similar manner.
> I wonder if it's really n
