On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:59:19 +0100 Tom Fennelly <tom.fennelly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Nick. > > So what exactly should the websocket people have done here? Looking at your original post in this thread, it's clear the spec to which they should've paid more attention is HTTP. IIRC that's RFC2616. You can't really complain that an HTTP proxy implements the HTTP spec, but you can tweak it to support other specs. > rfc2774 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt). (Without looking, I assume that's a websockets spec, and builds on something that's mostly HTTP, and maybe 100% HTTP where proxies are excluded.) You can implement that. You can commission a developer to implement that (I'd be available). Or you can make your interest known and hope that someone gives their attention to it. As I said before, it would be very straightforward to implement what you originally asked for in mod_proxy, or rather more work to read through that RFC in detail and scour it for any other deviations from HTTP that haven't bitten you but might in future. -- Nick Kew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|