httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Akins <bak...@web.turner.com>
Subject Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed May 5 23:45:14 EDT 2004
Date Fri, 07 May 2004 17:49:45 GMT
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

>    * When UseCanonicalName is set to OFF, allow ap_get_server_port to 
>      check r->connection->local_addr->port before defaulting to 
>      server->port or ap_default_port()
>        server/core.c r1.247
>      +1: bnicholes, jim
>       0: nd, jerenkrantz
>         nd: can the local_addr->port ever be 0?
>	 bnicholes response: I couldn't tell you for sure if local_addr->port
>	  could be 0.  But it makes sense that if it were then Apache 
>	  wouldn't be listening on any port so it wouldn't matter anyway.
>         nd replies: But if it can't be 0 the alternatives thereafter make no
>           sense anymore, right?
>  
>


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?

-- 
Brian Akins
Senior Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies


Mime
View raw message