I thought RFC 6455 specifies ws and wss... On Jun 14, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jun 14, 2014, at 7:06 AM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM, <[email protected]> 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....
