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 <j...@jagunet.com> 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 things? 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 :-) Also.... 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
