Steffan Davies wrote: >> It would require the developer to re-engineer their cache solution. Seems >> excessive. > > To work with every current or future application whose developer isn't > able or willing to implement proxy support? Seems quite a nice tick-list > feature to me, though I suppose it depends how technical an audience > you're marketing to.
There is only one I've seen that does at present - Bloxx, and while it's a nice product it lacks a firewall. > You have (or your vendor has) already engineered one based on URLs - the > DNS case is actually probably simpler. Why is it simpler? How would you go about filtering DNS? > I think we may be talking at cross purposes here, unless you mean to say > that it's impossible to run properly managed, stable services without > buying lots of pre-configured boxes. If you're talking about the use of appliances for Internet access in schools, it is pretty much the only way to do it. > Some of the most irritating > problems I've worked on as a sysadmin have been with such devices when > their design assumptions don't quite match reality. Well they do HTTP proxy, as advertised. So I'm not having a problem with the appliances. Sigh. > (Much, in fact, as > the Kontiki platform's design assumptions don't match a school/corporate > network topology). I have no problem with the Kontiki people not thinking about school/corporate environments, it wasn't in their remit. The BBC however, maybe should have thought a bit harder about this when choosing a platform - given their audience, and the amount of taxpayers money they spent developing it. But it seems that expecting developers in this Web 2.0 age to have any semblance of a clue is too much. Best Regards, Graham. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
