httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Nicholes" <>
Subject Re: Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort
Date Tue, 11 May 2004 22:18:52 GMT
+1 to Bill's comment.  I don't quite understand what is confusing and
why we would need UseCanonicalPort.  IMO, all that really needs to be
done is to fix UseCanonicalName so that it works according to the
documentation.  As was explained previously, when UseCanonicalName is
OFF, both 1.3 and 2.1 try to pull the port information from the client
in any way that it can before defaulting to values supplied in the .conf
file or the hard-coded standard port values.  The problem with the 2.0
tree is that it only looks for the port value as part of the URL before
defaulting to the known values.  Before using known values, it should
look for the port in the connection information (ie.
r->connection->local_addr->port).  The current result can produce
incorrect port information when a port value is not supplied as part of
the URL.  According to the documentation, if UseCanonicalName is OFF it
should construct the self-referential information from the client.  By
skipping the port information held in the connection record, it isn't
doing what it claims to be doing.


Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions 

>>> Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:36:29 PM >>>
Jim, would you post a chart of the now-three proposed behaviors,
with the various effects broken out?  It would help us all understand
why we need a third way.


At 02:53 PM 5/11/2004, you wrote:
>IMO, we need more control over the port number that Apache
>determines to be canonical beyond that which is provided
>by UseCanonicalName, simply because there are so
>many options and permutations which are possible
>and applicable for different environments.
>To that end, instead of overloading UseCanonicalName
>(and breaking the API), I'm working on UseCanonicalPort.
>Before I spend lots of time on this, I need to
>get a feel for whether this is an itch others
>think need scratching and would vote for including
>in 2.0 (I'm working on 1.3, 2.0 and 2.1 patches)...

View raw message