<p>Redirected to list for further input</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: "David Van Assche" <<a href="mailto:dvanassche@gmail.com">dvanassche@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Feb 19, 2011 4:49 PM<br>Subject: wwwoffle, patched squid+some form of dns<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:martin@laptop.org">martin@laptop.org</a>>, <<a href="mailto:team@lists.activitycentral.com">team@lists.activitycentral.com</a>><br><br>Thanks for the kind email. Just to give u some background. This really<br>
came from a Paraguay deployment, where they asked if they could<br>redirect <a href="http://activities.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">activities.sugarlabs.org</a> to a local server since their net<br>
access is quite internittent. Looking arround and asking on #bind (boy<br>are they picky about terminology) I discovered a patch for Squid that<br>actually creates 3 states made for internmittent access, no accerss, or<br>
access on demand. The patch to the source is attached in case its of<br>interest.<br><br>The other option was tu use dnsmasq as an alternate DNS manager which<br>looks far simpler for the guys in the field.<br><br>However, if u think using wwwoofle as is, will do what we need (we<br>
would like to make this a product whereby we can add mrore than just<br>the aforementioned url and contents to a preferably python base gui,<br>then that's great. Your advice is geatly appreciated.<br><br>kind regards,<br>
David Van Assche<br><br>On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Martin Langhoff <<a href="mailto:martin@laptop.org" target="_blank">martin@laptop.org</a>><br>wrote:<br><br> David,<br><br> if you are going to get a dns and proxy that is patch / configured<br>
"specially" for offline browsing... you get wwwoffle?<br><br> So I rephrase your question to: should we use wwwoffle or should we<br> rewrite wwwoffle?<br><br> I say we use it :-)<br><br> m<br><br>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM, David Van Assche<br> <<a href="mailto:dvanassche@gmail.com" target="_blank">dvanassche@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > Hi Martin, sorry for briefly<br> interrupting you. In your opinion would it be > better to go with<br>
WWWOffle for capturing offline content in a cache, or > using SQUID<br> together with the tri-state patch which allows for 3 kinds of ><br> off/online modes. One where Cache has a huge TTL, the other where<br>
it has non > so everything is always relevant, or a third option<br> for intermittent > connections where its the best of both worlds,<br> when no net, cache TTL is > maxed out again) and when net comes<br>
back its at minimal TTL. This sounds > relatively useful to me,<br> though the patch, albeit modified in 2010, since > its first<br> release in 2001. Obviously a local DNS server would still be ><br> necessary to choose which sites to send to the local ><br>
webserver/backend/whatever solution. For DNS I've heard good things<br> about > dnsmasq, and of course BIND9 is the standard.... what are<br> your thoughts? > > kind regards, > David Van Assche<br>
><br><br><br><br> --<br> <a href="mailto:martin@laptop.org" target="_blank">martin@laptop.org</a> -- Software Architect - OLPC<br> - ask interesting questions<br> - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first<br>
- <a href="http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff" target="_blank">http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff</a><br><br>
</blockquote></p>