jason andrade wrote:
> Apologies if this is an ignorant question, but where do mirror sites fit
> in the scheme of things.. are they just less sophisticated reverse
proxies?
As someone who is very interested in mirroring technology as a form of
content distribution, I would point out that mirrors have implementation
issues which are different from reverse proxies, and that mirroring
technology can be at least as sophisticated as a reverse proxy and offers
some capabilities which are not offered by http->http gateways of any kind.
Henrik Nordström wrote
> I thought mirrors was covered as one subset of the "surrogate" concept,
> but it seems this has been narrowed down to only cover "reverse proxies"
> and similar constructs, with a vague reference to something undefined
> called "delegates", or the wording is a bit too dim.
>
> If the goal is still that mirrors are one form of surrogates then
> perhaps the last sentence should be reworded and maybe moved down to the
> "reverse proxy" section...
>
> Change proposal:
>
> Devices commonly known as "reverse proxies" and "(origin) server
> accelerators" are both more properly defined as a type of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> surrogates acting as caching http->http gateways to replicate
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the content.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Depending on its policy and implementation, a mirror can be
indistinguishable from a "reverse proxy" or "origin accellerator" so I
believe mirrors should be included as a type of surrogate. If they are not,
then the work I am most interested in will not be covered.
Micah Beck
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST