Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > >... > > Maybe it's time to start looking harder for that luxury, instead of > putting up with the received wisdom of "if we build a huge centralized > system, everything will work better." Nobody is talking about building a huge centralized system. I used a centralized system as an *example* because sometimes centralization can be efficient. The whole point of a caching proxy is to achieve efficiencies of scale through centralization. I could just as easily have used a decentralized system as an example. An intermediary that does not use caching is an encrypting, privacy-protecting proxy. Such a proxy still needs to understand the protocol in order to understand what you are asking it to do once it has done its encrypting. If I have to set up a different privacy-protecting proxy for every XML vocabulary in the world I'll pretty quickly go out of business and my customers will lose the *decentralizing* benefits of the proxy. > The longer we spend on that set of knotty issues, and the more we > privilege work that address those issues, the less time we have to > consider alternatives that might just make our lives a lot easier and > keep a lot of us sane. Solving knotty issues *does* keep us sane. The Internet wouldn't exist if someone didn't solve the knotty issues around routing and congestion control, for example. Paul Prescod
|
