* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >>> What would folks say to renaming all occurances of "reverse proxy" > >>> to say "gateway" in our documentation? > > jean-frederic clere wrote: > > I am not sure that is a good idea see > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_proxy > > read and contrast to > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_%28telecommunications%29 > which is equivalent to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_%28computer_networking%29 > > Erik Abele wrote: > > On 01.08.2007, at 13:50, Lars Eilebrecht wrote: > >> "Reverse Proxy" is a commonly used term, and I don't see a reason > >> why we should use something else. > > > > and is there a special reason for the proposed change or just > > über-correctness? :) > > several reasons; > > * Reverse-proxy is somethign of a double negative, making the term > impossible to 'visualize' - Even "Content-proxy" would be clearer > than 'Reverse'. We aren't sending requests from the back end server > to the client, that would be "reversing" the connection or proxy. > > * it doesn't conform to proxy semantics from an HTTP server point > of view. > > RFC spelled out for a very long time that [...] The problem is that RFC 2616 isn't the only place where "gateway" is defined (that's what all the -1 are about, I think). So in order to be correct it would "gateway in terms of RFC 2616". And despite that being correct it's kinda useless, because nobody cares ;-) nd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
