Hi Daniel...

I agree with only adding what is really required.

I'm not convinced that libcurl should provide the local port...you would
only care if you grab the socket...and then you can look for yourself.

Why would I want to specify the local port? Is there a use case for that?

So far, I see connect only and grab the socket as the two things that are
needed. It is all I think I need and I think it would solve the other
presented applications as well.

Hi Allan...

Could you zip up (only) the files that you changed and send them to me? I'll
look them over and send you a diff if you want.

Thanks,

...Karl

>From: Daniel Stenberg Subject: Re: Passing raw data through a proxy
>Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:18:11 +0100 (CET)
>
>On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Allen Chan wrote:
>
>>A new function springs to mind, what if you could also specify the socket
>>that libcurl would use? We already have specify-the-local-port, might as
>>well specify the socket too. Multiple proxy tunnelling anyone? Sounds like
>>a bad hacker movie.
>
>For that to work, it would not only mean specify-the-socket, it would have
>to mean that the socket is already connected to the peer/proxy.
>
>But I'd rather see actual use cases when we add new features, since adding
>them on a "they might be good to have some day"-basis risk bloating and
>complicating the lib sources without any useful purpose.
>
>--
> Commercial curl and libcurl Technical Support: http://haxx.se/curl.html
Received on 2006-01-15