httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <>
Subject Re: BindAddress and Listen
Date Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:36:54 GMT
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <> writes:

> From: "Jeff Trawick" <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 11:15 AM
> > "William A. Rowe, Jr." <> writes:
> > 
> > > I'd even go so far as depreciate the Port directive in favor of a more
> > > decorated ServerName directive ( where port 80 is
> > > assumed.
> > 
> > If we don't really need Port ('cause we don't need a port number in
> > addition to what is specified on the Listen statement), then I'm all
> > for dropping Port.  But if we need the functionality of Port I'd
> > rather see it remain as-is than overload ServerName like that.
> How is that 'Overloading'?  ServerName specifies the name the server answers as.
> Port (when Listen is specified) degrades to specifing the port the
> server answers as.

"when Listen is specified"

> It's (if I've got this right) nothing more than identity, no?  I wouldn't
> consider that 'overloading' 

but if Listen isn't specified it is overloading...

>                                 I'm certain IPv6 and other protocols introduce
> all sorts of naming/identity issues...

such as?

And what does that have to do with ServerName?  I guess you want
ServerName to always make sense to whatever protocol is being used,
and for any such identity to be encoded in ServerName such that if
this is an HTTP engine it is name+port and if it is some other
protocol then it could be something completely different?

This means that whatever funky protocol-specific syntax is needed to
jam protocol-specific info in a string can't be checked very well by a
protocol-neutral directive processing function, so what is the point?
Let the protocol-specific module provide whatever it needs for this
concept (if anything).

Jeff Trawick | | PGP public key at web site:
             Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message