Erik Abele wrote: > On 01.08.2007, at 21:32, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> On Aug 1, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >>> ... >>> Thats fine, but please keep the term reverse-proxy in parallel for >>> the reasons >>> stated by others here. It may be a silly and incorrect term, but in >>> contrast to >>> gateway in this context it is widely used and (at least many :-)) >>> people do know >>> what it means. >> >> Actually, very few people know what it means, which is why we end up >> with so many poorly designed extensions to mod_proxy that really >> should be in a separate module called mod_gateway. > > So in that light we should probably start educating the developers first > instead of the users ;-) > > In any case, +1 to extending the docs for now rather than simply > substituting (as proposed by Bill "reverse-proxy (e.g. gateway server)").
Yes that is the best... If you look to http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/ it says "HTTP/1.1 proxy/gateway server"... But hard to find "gateway" in http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy.html. Cheers Jean-Frederic > > Cheers, > Erik > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
