Re: Proxy code size.

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, James A. Donald wrote:

> My conjecture is:
> A caching proxy attempts to be transparent,

 Only if it is told to..

> In general this cannot be done, and there is no short
> finite set of rules that if followed will yield
> an acceptable simulation.

 RFCs are normally what squid is coded to , while they are finite at
times, they are constantly updated / added / revised..

> The writer of a caching proxy encounters an unending stream
> of unforeseen and unexpected cases, which he must deal with
> as best he can, with the result that the code of a caching
> proxy tends to grow without limit.

 Hmm. Since I am not a full-time or spare time squid hacker(current duties
no longer require it), I cannot answer that. For the most part I would say
no..

You are forgetting ICP, cache digests, ACLs, FileIO stuffs and alot of the
other features that are needed to make a proxy fast and scaleable..This
tends to lead to code growth more than putting in hooks for broken
browsers..

> Does this conjecture seem to describe the code growth that you have
> encountered?

 I would say no. but I could be wrong. If you look at the feature list of
squid compared to a bare-bones proxy in a few hundred or thousand lines of
code, I think you will see the answer is quite clear..

cheers,

--
jason