From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:48 PM
> > +1 on this patch, reason being...
> >
> > we have a bunch of confusion over the port/listen directives. I believe this
> > patch is headed in the right direction.
> >
> > We NEED to depreciate the old Port behavior. It is terribly confusing to folks
> > to change their port, and have nothing happen.
> >
> > Listening should be through a Listen directive, alone. A few folks need to
> > change the .conf file, but this is 2.0, so everyone will be changing their
> > .conf file for varied reasons.
> >
> > By assuming port 80, we make the user believe that the Port directive is actually
> > in control of something. Of course, it's not.
> >
> > Let's get the pain over with, finally. If they forget Listen, then don't make
> > assumptions for them.
>
> How would you solve the problem of having the server listen on one port,
> but report that it is listening on another?
1. It needs to be solved, and needs to be intuitive. That's why I suggested renaming
the Port directive to ServerPort [corresponding to ServerName]. It's a pure
identity,
and doesn't have any relationship to the listener.
2. I'd rather have the user omit ServerPort and solve that [as we do for ServerName]
than omit their Listen directive.
3. Would need an additional patch, without a doubt. But this is a good first step.
Bill
