> IMO, architecture 2, a fuse proxy, is less attractive than 1, the http proxy. I agree that the "fuse proxy" option is extremely unattractive and can be removed from the list.
The "static file server" option is classic for simple use-cases (e.g. single publisher), but once we have dropbox-like functionality it becomes too simple to discuss, and until then - it's not an option :) This narrows the discussion (IMHO) to whether we develop a "built-in web server" or keep doing it "http proxy". > I personally am interested in the idea that a public web interface > operator is not directly aware of the content or the publishers of > data being served. I wasn't thinking about this use case until now, but thanks to you - now I do :) Intuitively, "http proxy" seems to suit this better than "built-in web server", but I'll sleep on it. Cheers, The Dod
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
