Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1602523 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy:
 mod_proxy.c proxy_util.c
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALK=YjMjFkCU=fr7_x-AN_36CxO_nAuTPFoBRmnSY4y0avPuzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:29:16 -0400
Cc: cvs@httpd.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <9D41BF2F-C651-45B9-89C0-C73B57929820@jaguNET.com>
References: <20140613211052.51AC9238897A@eris.apache.org>
 <CALK=YjMjFkCU=fr7_x-AN_36CxO_nAuTPFoBRmnSY4y0avPuzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org


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

	ProxyPass / http://foo.bar/

since all requests in this case would go to the
http scheme handler (no matter what the incoming scheme
was) as well as

	ProxyPass / ws://foo.bar/

Which would always go websockets, whether we wanted to
or not. In other words, the incoming scheme determined
the scheme we use on the backend, instead of it being
"hard-coded" in the ProxyPass command.

Not sure if I misunderstood or not :/