[tahoe-dev] Public web interface

[Uncle Zzzen]

> IMO, architecture 2, a fuse proxy, is less attractive than 1, the http
proxy.
I agree that the "fuse proxy" option is extremely unattractive and can be
removed from the list.

The "static file server" option is classic for simple use-cases (e.g.
single publisher), but once we have dropbox-like functionality it becomes
too simple to discuss, and until then - it's not an option :)

This narrows the discussion (IMHO) to whether we develop a "built-in web
server" or keep doing it "http proxy".

> I personally am interested in the idea that a public web interface
> operator is not directly aware of the content or the publishers of
> data being served.
I wasn't thinking about this use case until now, but thanks to you - now I
do :)
Intuitively, "http proxy" seems to suit this better than "built-in web
server", but I'll sleep on it.

Cheers,
The Dod
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/attachments/20121204/baa27b89/attachment.html>