From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6ffd8b5d521bfd9d7ed408e159e4c226@plug.quanstro.net> References: <20101113190805.GA22589@nibiru.local> <6ffd8b5d521bfd9d7ed408e159e4c226@plug.quanstro.net> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:12:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6464d1a61bc830494f756cc Subject: Re: [9fans] webfs + mozilla Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7c983dce-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --0016e6464d1a61bc830494f756cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > In longer terms, I'd also replace mozilla's handling of other > > protocols, eg. ftp, by an webfs implementation. > > > > > > What do you think about this ? > > webfs is client side, not server side. > > - erik > > I must confess, I understood the question more than this comment. Why not use webfs for Mozilla? How much code could be saved by re-using the webfs service? --0016e6464d1a61bc830494f756cc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, erik q= uanstrom <qua= nstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> In longer terms, I'd also replace mozilla's = handling of other
> protocols, eg. ftp, by an webfs implementation.
>
>
> What do you think about this ?

webfs is client side, not server side.

- erik

I must confess, I understood the question more th= an this comment.

Why not use webfs for Mozilla? =A0How m= uch code could be saved by re-using the webfs service?
--0016e6464d1a61bc830494f756cc--