As Bill pointed out, I'm looking into whether we can make an API where a
user could plug in their own proxy implementation, somewhat along the lines
of what Jake suggested. Just to be clear - Jake's code is more of a
demonstration of some concepts than a working prototype. The API we
actually need
I’m not nearly as familiar with proxies as y’all are, but thinking OO here, I
would expect an API (interface) that covers all interactions that might involve
a proxy, e.g.:
interface Proxy {
Socket connectSocket(InetSocketAddress hostAndPort);
}
You could then have several implementations, s
Everyone,
I would like to hear from more than us 5 people on this. It would be really
great if others would chime in.
-Jake
> On Mar 12, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Bill Burcham wrote:
>
> Sure Udo. Dan is exploring some ideas now.
>
> All: let's consider this round of RFC closed (since it official
Sure Udo. Dan is exploring some ideas now.
All: let's consider this round of RFC closed (since it officially closed
yesterday) and we'll re-open it with a new deadline when we have those
changes in hand.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:26 AM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> Hi there Jake,
>
> Another twist to
Hi there Jake,
Another twist to the story, but with a working (if unpolished ;) )
prototype.
It covers all bases of:
* Type safety
* Extensibility
* Simple API design
* API clarity
It takes the best of all approaches.
I like it!!
+1 to this implementation.
-1 to Bill's approach.
@Bil
