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)... >
