WNS via HTTP proxy

[alex-friedl]

Use own fork with support for HTTP Proxys via https://github.com/koichik/node-tunnel module

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling bf0e4f7 on alex-friedl:wnsHttpProxy into 94306de on appfeel:master.

[appfeel]

Hi @alex-friedl, in https://github.com/alex-friedl/wns I see This branch is even with tjanczuk:master.

If changes have been merged it makes no sense to change wns branch, but I think this is not the case as latest commit is from 2013.

If you plan to make changes, I propose to wait until changes have been finished. Anyway as a first chance I think it's a better option to pull request the canges on tjanczuk's repo.

[alex-friedl]

Hi @appfeel,
the change is in commit #660afd2 (see package.json commit hash in dependency) which is the HEAD of branch https://github.com/alex-friedl/wns/tree/httpsPort

[miqmago]

Hi @alex-friedl, sorry for my unknowledge, I'm little confused about this: which is the purpose of using http proxy? Also https://github.com/alex-friedl/wns#660afd2 is an older version of the @tjanczuk latest one, isn't it? Does the latest one fix any bugs that could be re-introduced if we change to previous version?

Couldn't this change be commited directly to @tjanczuk's library? What do you think @tjanczuk?

[alex-friedl]

Hi @appfeel,
sorry for the late reply but I was on holiday.

The purpose of my branch of the wns module is to be able to use the push library behind a corporate proxy.

It would be preferable to add my commit to the wns module directly, but it seems like @tjanczuk does not maintain the library anymore? Either way I opened a PR a while ago tjanczuk/wns#28

My fork branches from the latest master of wns, does it not?

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling db944bd on alex-friedl:wnsHttpProxy into 8035461 on appfeel:master.