Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

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)...

Re: Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

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.

Bill

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)...
>

Re: Request for feedback - UseCanonicalPort

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

On May 11, 2004, at 9:53 PM, Jim Jagielski 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.

Though I suspect that I've missed some discussion here - I can
thing of at least 2 cases where a UseCanonicalPort separate
from the name would be goodness. Or alternatively some
more sublte client-fall-through-filter-and-add/replace-values.

But +1 on not overloading Name further and separate into Port.

Dw