httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Ruggeri <>
Subject Re: uds support
Date Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:58:53 GMT
On 10/16/2013 6:43 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> One thing about "lumping" both the UDS path *and* the
> actual URL into the name field is that it really limits
> the size of both, such that, long term, I think it will
> come back and bite us. Since last night I've been working
> on a plan to simply create a new field for the path,
> which gives us a lot more breathing room and places
> less restrictions on URL and pathname length.

Been MIA for the past few days and I'm confused on what the final
direction is - can you clarify?

FWIW, I rather liked this idea:

On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

> Committed in r1531340 the above is implemented... kinda.
> I instead went with
> 	http://localhost/foo/bar|sock:/var/run.s.sock
> which worked out just a bit cleaner...

... because as a server administrator, it's fairly clear what's going on.

Can you elaborate on what the challenges were with merging the two
paths? Why merge them at all? It seems logical that everything after the
pipe is used to open the socket and everything prior is treated as it
has always been and never shall the two mix... or am I over simplifying

IMO, the syntax you suggested on the 11th also allows for a bit of
"futureproofing" in that "sock:" can be replaced with all kinds of
things down the road. Maybe some day I'll have an ethernet cord plugged
into my ear and it'll become
http://localhost/memory|brain:/pub/wetware.sock :-)

Per some other discussion, it seems like using localhost as HTTP host is
too restrictive. I'd hate to think that a UDS backend can't implement
its own concept of name-based vhosts behind Apache because localhost is
forced as the Host header.

Daniel Ruggeri

View raw message