Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Property for proxy URL prefix #2

Closed
csarven opened this issue Dec 26, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

Property for proxy URL prefix #2

csarven opened this issue Dec 26, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Dec 26, 2015

Might be a good idea to have the resources declare their preferred proxy URL. This is so that, proxy URLs can be discovered without hardcoding or maintaining the URLs in the application. That is, the application only needs to find the value of the property, and then use the prefix URL.

Example part of the response:

<http://example.org/> :proxyURLPrefix "http://example.org/,proxy?uri="

and/or:

Example part of the HTTP Header:

ProxyURLPrefix: http://example.org/,proxy?uri=

It is okay to try and use ,proxy?uri= in applications, but I think that expectation is not necessarily always going to work out in the wild. Servers are going to use whatever pattern they can and want. And, it is likely that they'll re-use an existing one instead of changing its path to a new one so that it is compatible with Solid - which is costly.

@rhiaro
Copy link

rhiaro commented Dec 26, 2015

I think applications are better placed to make decisions about which proxy to use than resource owners are. And applications are going to be more likely to keep this up to date if proxies die etc because the function of the app could depend on it.

@csarven
Copy link
Member Author

csarven commented Dec 26, 2015

Hmm, makes sense. I think I'm also conflating the role of a server and the resource here. It makes sense that the proxy is discovered at a server (perhaps through a resource), but it doesn't make sense that the resource needs to declare that. So, perhaps this is not that interesting. And, now I agree that it is better to leave it off for the application. I just cringe every time I hardcode anything into my code and look for a way in which things can be discovered by themselves.

@csarven csarven closed this as completed Dec 26, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants