Re: libwww, a different approach #AMMENDMENT
Graham Barr (bodg@tiuk.ti.com)
Wed, 15 Mar 95 11:59:30 GMT
In <9503150317.aa26290@paris.ics.uci.edu>
On Wed, 15 Mar 1995 03:17:50 -0800
Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU> writes:
> [...]
> >
> > Current Inheritance tree
> > ========================
> >
> > WWW::Scheme
> > |
> > WWW::URL
> > |
> > +----------+------+----+
> > | | |
> > WWW::file WWW::mailto | WWW::Proxy
> > | |
> > +---------+-------+--+---+-----+
> > | | | |
> > WWW::url WWW::http WWW::ftp WWW::telnet
>
> Very interesting -- I've never considered separating proxyable from
> non-proxyable. Actually, come to think of it, there is no reason that
> distinction should be made -- a local proxy is capable of proxying both
> file and mailto (the latter as a request->returned form->POST).
My reply to this was wrong. You are right I have spilt them into proxy-able
and non-proxy-able
Although I do not agree that file and mailto are proxy-able
mailto only supplies a mail address which the user process send mail to.
Although thinking about it perhaps I have viewed this wrong in terms of GET/PUT.
currently GET-> call a callback to send mail to the address
maybe GET -> return address
PUT -> sends mail, maybe via proxy
OK so I just contradicted myself with mailto but file: is supposed to represent
an access to a file on your local machine therefore there should be no proxy
required
Regards,
Graham.
--
.-----------------------------------------------------------.
//// | Graham Barr Email: bodg@tiuk.ti.com | \\\\
| 00 | VLSI Cell Designer or: bodg@ti.com | 00 |
O ^ | MOS Design TI MSG: BODG | ^ O
\ ~/ | Texas Instruments Ltd Phone: +44 (0)1234 22 3419 | \~ /
| ENGLAND Fax: +44 (0)1234 22 3331 |
`-----------------------------------------------------------'