httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo ...@perlig.de>
Subject Re: Ban the phrase "reverse-proxy"?
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:45:22 GMT
* William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: 


> >>> What would folks say to renaming all occurances of "reverse proxy"
> >>> to say "gateway" in our documentation?
>
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
> > I am not sure that is a good idea see
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_proxy
>
> read and contrast to
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_%28telecommunications%29
> which is equivalent to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_%28computer_networking%29
>
> Erik Abele wrote:
> > On 01.08.2007, at 13:50, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> >> "Reverse Proxy" is a commonly used term, and I don't see a reason
> >> why we should use something else.
> >
> > and is there a special reason for the proposed change or just
> > über-correctness? :)
>
> several reasons;
>
> * Reverse-proxy is somethign of a double negative, making the term
>   impossible to 'visualize' - Even "Content-proxy" would be clearer
>   than 'Reverse'.  We aren't sending requests from the back end server
>   to the client, that would be "reversing" the connection or proxy.
>
> * it doesn't conform to proxy semantics from an HTTP server point
>    of view.
>
> RFC spelled out for a very long time that
[...]

The problem is that RFC 2616 isn't the only place where "gateway" is defined 
(that's what all the -1 are about, I think). So in order to be correct it 
would "gateway in terms of RFC 2616". And despite that being correct it's 
kinda useless, because nobody cares ;-)

nd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message