More code i meant to implement the whole full-blown proxy, was not
clear. As for activation, this is how the core works, everything is a
callback using url-specific hash entry, so current proxy implementation
works the same way, just using protocol/method instead of method/url for
regular HTTP. So i am not sure if we need to re-write this.
Name clash exists, but the module can be named as nshttpproxy
Stephen Deasey wrote:
Well, no. You could transparent proxy right now by using
ns_register_proc and ns_http to forward the request. It's *less*
code.
There's two separate issues: where the HTTP proxy code lives; and how
it is activated. The only think stopping you moving the code to the
nsproxy module -- which is the right thing to do even if you don't
plan to immediately add more to the simple implementation you have now
-- is the naming clash with Zoran's bundled nsproxy module. The
activation stuff I guess needs some thought.
Exposing this as Tcl commands is definitely a good move. But with the
activation bug and naming confusion it's sort of going in the wrong
direction. It would be great to set things off on the right foot so
that people could more easily contribute.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
naviserver-devel mailing list
naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel
--
Vlad Seryakov
571 262-8608 office
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/
