Access to the socket (plugging in the initial socket, or some other means) would be very useful. For example, in the Gnutella world there is what's known as a 'push' -- when client B is firewalled and client A (not firewalled) wants to connect to B. To accomplish this, A sends a message through the network telling B to connect to him and then (after B connects) A proceeds as normal (as if A had made the outgoing connection in the first place). It is currently impossible to use HttpClient's functionality in these situations.
Thanks, Sam -----Original Message----- From: Michael Becke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:18 PM To: Commons HttpClient Project Subject: Re: Tunneling non-HTTP through a web proxy with HttpClient Hi Roland, > Of course, that is only required if the socket doesn't create > new input and output streams for each connection anyway. > As you have guessed by now, I agree that not the socket itself > but only the streams should be made available. Yes, I think this is the big question. Is having access to the I/O streams enough or would someone need access to the actual Socket? If it's just the streams then I think we can probably do this now. If we need access to the socket then we need to rethink things a little. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
