On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, dlb wrote: > For instance, an application might want to transpose > its security policy to the proxy session. It might need to > connect on an alternative port due to firewall issues. And > the Flash player might then need to load a 'shim'.
Yes, I see the point now. XMLSocket is limited to ports above 1024, so this is another added benefit as well. It seems to me that, if we were to try to make this a generalized proxy for other clients besides Flash, we will still have to deal with the minor issue of determining if it is a Flash client (or any other client that appends a zero-byte to outgoing data) and if so, handling it accordingly. I personally would like to see it generalized as well, so that it can be of the greatest benefit to the community. Now, the question is: Who, besides me, would like to continue the planning phase and see this thing to fruition? I'd imagine we should take the details of it all off-list at some point. I'll gladly organize the effort if need be, but I acknowledge that my technical skills on the server side are a bit lacking for me to implement a working version on my own. A formalized publicly available document or JEP outlining the proxy control protocol and the details of it all would of course be best - allowing the open source community to have it's own implementation and independent commercial vendors to have perhaps implementations that they can bundle with their servers. - Sean _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
