httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mads Toftum <m...@toftum.dk>
Subject Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed May 5 23:45:14 EDT 2004
Date Fri, 07 May 2004 18:57:40 GMT
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:49:45PM -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
> Any reason why we can't bring back the "Port" option or somehow 
> designate a "canonical" port.  In our environment, our load balancers 
> send traffic to some port besides 80, but all redirects should instruct 
> the client to use port 80 (or 443).  The port the client connects to (on 
> the load balancer) may not even be in the Apache config.  We must also 
> use "UseCanonicalName Off."  Problem is that anything that uses 
> ap_get_server_port (like ap_construct_url), currently, will use this 
> "private" port to do redirects.  To work around this, I wrote a little 
> mod that, early in the request, changes  r->parsed_uri.port to the 
> correct port.  This works and should not be affected by the proposed 
> changes, but I'm unsure if it's screwing something else up.
> 
> This is a little confusing.  Is there a better way to do this?
> 
Wouldn't adding the port to ServerName be what you need?
ServerName example.com:80
Iirc it is even suggested in the docs.

vh

Mads Toftum
-- 
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall


Mime
View raw message