DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|3.0 Final |4.0 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-27 09:29 --- Odi, All I am saying is that HttpParams _might_ be a better place for proxy settings, as HostConfiguration is getting a little too messy IMO. I am not trying to say that we should not support multiple proxies and different proxy types. Let's just consider leveraging HttpParams as it has been specifically designed to allow parameter settings at client | method | connection level Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-27 07:11 --- Oleg, Proxy settings are 'manual routing' on the application layer of the protocol stack. Therefore proxy settings must remain a per host property in any case. Even if most proxy users will only use one proxy setting for all their connections, we must not restrict HttpClient to this most common case. I think it is an essential flexibility to be able to use a specific proxy per connection. At our company for instance, we have access to the intranets of some of our clients. It makes sense to set up one proxy server for each of those connections. With HttpClient I can then access any host in those intranets depending on the proxy setting. Also, if we ever want to implement PAC (auto config) we need to be able to use one setting per host. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-26 18:20 --- Just one comment, please keep in mind those of us that use multi-homed hosts. There can be times where traffic on one NIC will require use a a proxy where traffic directed through another will not. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-25 22:43 --- That's the point. I can't help thinking that proxy settings do not really belong to HostConfiguration at all, as one would very rarely need to change proxy on a per host basis. In the overwhelming majority of cases there's only one proxy the user would want to deal with. So, I'd rather see proxy settings moved to HttpParams, but that would be too radical for 3.0. Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-25 22:19 --- Whatever's easiest for you folks is fine for us. We're going to continue using a customized version of HttpClient for the indefinite future, so it doesn't much matter where it goes in the official version. Storing the SOCKS info in HostConfiguration was more because we consider a SOCKS proxy to be on the same footing as an HTTP Proxy (in the sense that they're both proxies), and HTTP proxy was stored in HostConfig. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-25 22:06 --- I agree that this probably won't make it in until the release after next (4.0). In the mean time we could refactor it into a stand-alone Socket factory and include it in contrib. How does that sound? Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Target Milestone|--- |3.0 Final --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-24 14:39 --- Somehow I can't help thinking that SOCKS parameters do not really belong to HostConfiguration. I would rather see them in HttpState or in the HttpParam collection. I suggest we address this problem in the 3.0 (4.0, that is) timeframe. Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-15 22:39 --- Credit for the previous diff goes to Sumeet Thadani, another developer on our team. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-04-15 22:37 --- Created an attachment (id=11253) example diff from a modified 2.0rc2 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28421] New: - Per socket SOCKS proxies
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28421 Per socket SOCKS proxies Summary: Per socket SOCKS proxies Product: Commons Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: Enhancement Priority: Other Component: HttpClient AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HttpClient requires a way of allowing a SOCKS proxy to be used on some connections without requiring that all created Sockets go through the proxy. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SOCKS Proxies
Hi Sam, I agree with Roland's assessment. I think your only option is to implement a ProtocolSocketFactory that creates SOCKS proxied sockets. To my knowledge there is no public way to configure Sun's sockets for SOCKS on a per instance method. You may need to build your own client side SOCKS support if there is no way to make use of the built-in methods. Mike On Apr 14, 2004, at 1:04 PM, Sam Berlin wrote: Hi All, The website states the SOCKS proxies are supported by the setting the native java properties that convert Sockets to using SOCKS internally. Unfortunately, this solution is not possible for us, as we need to be able to create Sockets sometimes with and sometimes without SOCKS. How would one go about implementing SOCKS as an additional proxying method (on the 2.0 code)? Some rough pointers to the general classes that require changes would be useful. Thanks much, Sam - 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]
Re: SOCKS Proxies
Hi Sam, SOCKS is a socket level protocol that is supposed to be transparent for the application using the sockets. So you best take a look at org.apache.commons.httpclient.protocol.ProtocolSocketFactory. By implementing your own ProtocolSocketFactory, you are free to return a plain socket or one that uses SOCKS. cheers, Roland Sam Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 14.04.2004 19:04 Please respond to "Commons HttpClient Project" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: SOCKS Proxies Hi All, The website states the SOCKS proxies are supported by the setting the native java properties that convert Sockets to using SOCKS internally. Unfortunately, this solution is not possible for us, as we need to be able to create Sockets sometimes with and sometimes without SOCKS. How would one go about implementing SOCKS as an additional proxying method (on the 2.0 code)? Some rough pointers to the general classes that require changes would be useful. Thanks much, Sam - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SOCKS Proxies
Hi All, The website states the SOCKS proxies are supported by the setting the native java properties that convert Sockets to using SOCKS internally. Unfortunately, this solution is not possible for us, as we need to be able to create Sockets sometimes with and sometimes without SOCKS. How would one go about implementing SOCKS as an additional proxying method (on the 2.0 code)? Some rough pointers to the general classes that require changes would be useful. Thanks much, Sam - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
