On 13 Jun 2012, at 01:03, Nick Kew wrote:
> You can implement that. You can commission a developer to
> implement that (I'd be available). Or you can make your
> interest known and hope that someone gives their attention
> to it.
If you want to try it yourself, just go through mod_proxy_http.c
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:59:19 +0100
Tom Fennelly wrote:
> Hi Nick.
>
> So what exactly should the websocket people have done here?
Looking at your original post in this thread, it's clear the
spec to which they should've paid more attention is HTTP.
IIRC that's RFC2616.
You can't really complai
Hi Nick.
So what exactly should the websocket people have done here? I found
rfc2774 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt). Is that the spec that
should have been followed or is there something else? It says
"experimental" and it's quite old at this stage. Just trying to get an
idea of wh
On Mar 9, 2012, at 5:46 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> You could also question why the websockets folks went and abused hop-by-hop
> headers when they could instead have done what HTTP provides for and
> created extension headers to meet their needs without breaking anything!
>
Why? Because it's *webs
On 8 Mar 2012, at 21:35, TomFennelly wrote:
>
> Hi there.
>
> I have a reverse proxy configured, but mod_proxy seems to be removing some
> of the response headers that were sent from the origin server. I need the
> ones in question to be passed back to the client (websocket connection
> upgrad
Hi there.
I have a reverse proxy configured, but mod_proxy seems to be removing some
of the response headers that were sent from the origin server. I need the
ones in question to be passed back to the client (websocket connection
upgrade handshake headers). Is there a way of configuring this?
