By popular demand we are extending the RFC review period. I know Udo asked for Friday (and Joris +1'd it), but since this is a small RFC, we'd like to try to close it by Wednesday, March 11, ok?
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I raised similar concerns as a comment in the RFC. > > > On Mar 9, 2020, at 10:29 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > Given this new API: > > > > setPoolProxy(ProxyType type, String proxyAddress) > > > > The ProxyType enum seems to be a look ahead at supporting other kinds of > proxies. What is your thinking about using the enum vs specific named > API’s (e.g. setPoolProxyWithSNI). > > > > Currently the definition of the proxyAddress seems to be dependent of > the proxy type. Did you consider stronger typing using an URI parameter > type? > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > >> On Mar 6, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Bill Burcham <bill.burc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Please review the RFC for *Client side configuration for a SNI proxy*: > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Client+side+configuration+for+a+SNI+proxy > >> > >> Please comment by Monday, March 9, 2020. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bill and Ernie > > >
