Jan, On 22 Mar 2011, at 20:09, Jan Medved wrote: > On 3/22/11 3:46 AM, "Ben Niven-Jenkins" <b...@niven-jenkins.co.uk> wrote: > >>> If it's in front of an arbitrary ALTO server, >>> then I think I would agree with that limitation. (In the other case, >>> it seems like it would be possible to configure the ALTO Server >>> appropriately so that all advertised endpoints were handled by the >>> proxy anyways.) >> >> If this is the use case (an arbitrary mod_proxy in front of an arbitrary >> ALTO server) then I'd say the problem is not ALTO's to solve. There are >> numerous examples of RESTful APIs and implementations in the wild of the >> Internet and within private networks and I haven't heard of them having >> to make restrictions with respect to absolute URLs to work around >> limitations of mod_proxy. >> > True, but these mostly are use cases where there is a single instance of a > service. Whatever we do here, we need make sure that a client can use > different ALTO Server instances, and different ALTO Server > implementations, in the same way.
My apologies but I don't really follow. Would it be possible for you to provide an outline description of a deployment scenario where mod_proxy would break an ALTO server implementation that returned absolute URLs but where other services running over HTTP that made use of absolute URLs would not break? Thanks Ben _______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
