> This sounds a whole lot like traffic shaping, which would be a brilliant argument against this. I'm sorry, but I am not sure I completely follow. Would you care to explain why this sort of proxying would be a bad idea? :) ~ ut On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Jonathan Kingston <jonathan@jooped.co.uk> wrote: > > My use-use was rather niche: a delay proxy for links on arbitrary > domains. > > This sounds a whole lot like traffic shaping, which would be a brilliant > argument against this. > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:01 PM Utkarsh Upadhyay <musically.ut@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I don't know whether my request a year ago was counted as +1, but here is >> it. :) >> >> My use-use was rather niche: a delay proxy for links on arbitrary domains. >> >> ~ >> ut >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Nico Schlömer <nico.schloemer@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the speedy reply! >>> >>> > And to be fair, we've not even had a handful of requests for it thus >>> far. >>> >>> Count this as a +1. :) >>> >>> (We'll now have to make a decision for our API to be RESTful or to be >>> accessible for clients that implement the fetch specification. :/) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Nico >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:40 PM Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Nico Schlömer < >>>> nico.schloemer@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > This seems to mean that one cannot do redirects for authenticated >>>> resources >>>> > -- even if the redirect is on the same domain (localhost). Can this >>>> really >>>> > be true or am I missing something? >>>> >>>> 1. This is true. Nobody wanted to implement the preflight scheme for >>>> redirects. At least not as a first pass. And to be fair, we've not >>>> even had a handful of requests for it thus far. >>>> 2. You want to read https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/ instead. It's the >>>> maintained version of the standard. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> https://annevankesteren.nl/ >>>> >>> >>
Received on Sunday, 24 January 2016 09:54:48 UTC