thanks very much for your quick answers. I believe the applet has indeed the problems, not the squid installations of our customers. Still someow our problem. :-(
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
What does the proxy access logs say?
According to our customer who runs the proxy: "POST http://213.160.26.42:65535/tunneler/F_OD-ROX-EV_DE11026194861081899800793 HTTP/1.1" Is that sufficient? Can i get more logging information?
Is there a general difference in the proxy use for the following configuration:It can't, but depending on how the applet has been written it may get confused if the browser is configured to use a proxy.Now the question is: How can squid influence the behavior of the two applets?
a) proxy use is done in the browser
b) gateways based routing over the proxy?
Very interersting and pretty good advice. ould you be so kind and exlain a bit more in detail? Especially the "on top of java section".What do the developpers have to change in the applet to avoid caching problems with squid?Only use the basic http primitives which relies on the browser http implementation, not some Java http implementation ontop of the Java TCP direct network connections.
What are the importend config directions to make sure the applets are not chached (for both squid and the application)?
See "Caching Tutorial for Web Authors and Webmasters" and/or "The Cacheability Engine".
Fine, i gonna read through this. :-)
What relation between the request of port 65535 can there be in relation to squid?
Port 65535 is the same as port -1. -1 is sometimes used in applications to represent "failed to understand the value".
Thanks, very good to know.
Best regards Tilmann
