Anthony and Jacob, I can see how the proposed ProxyType parameter could fit into the scheme part of a a URI. However, the problem that introduces is that we would then have to pick (named) URL schemes to support. But URL schemes are standardized and it's not obvious which of the standard ones might apply here.
If we couldn't adopt a standard scheme, we'd have to make one up. At that point I question the value of putting the (made-up) scheme into a URI string. For this reason, I am a fan of the ProxyType parameter over a made-up URL scheme. That leaves open Anthony's other idea: eliminating the ProxyType parameter in favor of a separate method to set each kind of proxy. In the current RFC, that's just one, e.g. setPoolProxyWithSNI. I guess that comes down to: what's the likelihood of us supporting other proxy types soon, and then what's the value of having a single method (and multiple enums) versus multiple methods (and no enum). If we thought the proxyAddress parameter would carry different information across proxy types that might tilt us toward the separate methods. The two on the table, however, (SNI, SOCKS5) both have identical proxyAddress information. On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 10:54 AM Bill Burcham <bill.burc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > >> >
