[Server-devel] Reverse proxies on the XS
walter at laptop.org
Sun Mar 9 10:06:26 EDT 2008
For the moment, we are talking about a single browser, but presumably
we'll want some computability with non-XO systems that may be part of
the school ecosystem.
2008/3/8 Carol Lerche <cafl at msbit.com>:
> As to the browser version incompatibility argument, aren't we talking about
> a single browser here? The XO? The school server isn't serving a random
> population of browsers. (Admittedly there might be a few non-XO machines,
> but I assume in most cases not many).
> Similarly, we know exactly what the major web components are to be resident
> on the school server, and the reverse proxy (if one were to be used) would
> be mediating traffic between these and the XOs. So their behavior regarding
> caching headers would be easily determined. Even so it seems as though a
> reverse proxy only has applicability to country servers or in the case of
> school servers, to a redundant configuration at a large school, e.g.
> Mongolia. And then, what is really wanted is a load balancing function.
> On the other hand, a forward proxy serves a useful purpose mediating between
> the school server and a slow/intermittent web connection. Am I missing
> 2008/3/8 Ivan Krstić <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu>:
> > On Mar 9, 2008, at 1:04 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> > > But you can't count on the upstream project to be producing good
> > > caching headers - they wouldn't be able to use it on the Internet.
> > This is far too strong a statement to stand without qualification.
> > It's one thing to say browsers might ignore cache control headers and
> > re-issue requests they shouldn't, causing unnecessary traffic. It's
> > another thing entirely to say that you believe applications should
> > intentionally omit cache control headers because it might break the web.
> > In a previous life, I built a non-trivial chunk of backend
> > architecture for one of the largest websites in existence. To my
> > knowledge, we were never burned by using cache control headers. It's
> > certainly possible you can convince me this is a bad strategy, but I'm
> > trying to make sure you understand there's a burden of proof here;
> > shunning standards on account of hand-waving about things that might
> > hypothetically break is a bad idea, and doubly so when building a new
> > platform.
> > --
> > Ivan Krstić <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | http://radian.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Server-devel mailing list
> > Server-devel at lists.laptop.org
> > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
> "Always do right," said Mark Twain. "This will gratify some people and
> astonish the rest."
> Server-devel mailing list
> Server-devel at lists.laptop.org
One Laptop per Child
More information about the Server-devel