On 07/13/2014 02:38 PM, Kinkie wrote: >> In all seriousness "haproxy-protocol" is probably the most correct >> descriptive right now. But I am trying hard to avoid naming a competitor >> in our most visible documentations. > > How so? We are not a commercial product; I have no issues with naming > a competitor.
I do not know what you mean by "not a commercial product" exactly, but there is competition among all proxy products. Being an open source project does not position us above (or below) the competition with other open- and closed-source products. We may decide to "advertise" a competitor (of any kind), but using GPL does not really make the correct decision any easier IMO. We should name haproxy if naming haproxy brings Squid more good than harm. In the particular case of this configuration option, the harm I see comes not from competition with haproxy, but from implying that the protocol is somehow specific to haproxy and from having to rename the option later if the PROXY protocol is renamed or standardized (I hope IETF does not standardize the PROXY name for a protocol, but worst things have happened). If we have to pick between "proxy-protocol" and "haproxy-protocol", I would probably vote for "haproxy-protocol", but both options are pretty bad for various reasons. We can also use "willy-tarreau-proxy-protocol". Cheers, Alex.
