httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1602523 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy: mod_proxy.c proxy_util.c
Date Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:02:58 GMT
I thought RFC 6455 specifies ws and wss...

On Jun 14, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 14, 2014, at 7:06 AM, Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM,  <jim@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Allow for "magic" scheme "auto" which makes the scheme of
>>>> the backend worker match whatever the scheme of the
>>>> incoming request was...
>>>> 
>>>> For example:
>>>> 
>>>>  ProxyPass / auto://foo.example.com/
>>>> 
>>>> If the incoming request is http:.../lala then
>>>> the resultant will be http://foo.example.com/lala
>>>> 
>>>> If it's wws:.../lolo then we'd send
>>>> wws://foo.example.com/lolo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Does this work for websockets? Isn't the scheme http:// + Upgrade for
>>> websockets?
>>> 
>>> I thought "auto" would mean the handlers would second-guess the
>>> scheme, but if we replace it in proxy_util.c they cannot do that
>>> anymore.
>> 
>> 
>> I thought the idea/issue was that we wanted, for
>> example, an incoming http request to be handled by the
>> http proxy scheme handler and if it was ws, to be
>> handled by the ws scheme handler. This was not
>> possible with the normal setup
> 
> But a websockets request is a http scheme (really no explicit scheme)
> + an upgrade header.
> 
> GET /chat HTTP/1.1
> Connection: Upgrade
> Upgrade: websocket
> Host: 127.0.0.1:8080
> Origin: 127.0.0.1:8080
> Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
> Sec-WebSocket-Key: MTMtMTQwMjc3NDQxMzE0Ng==
> 
> HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
> Upgrade: websocket
> Connection: Upgrade
> Sec-WebSocket-Accept: fVFPYVP6z6n4b2wNyVnJz25W2Os=
> 
> .....&c.....&.d....


Mime
View raw message