Scott wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 08:07 -0400, Paul Mossman wrote: > > Damian wrote: > > > > Do you know that we already use http to server SNOM profiles? > > > You may want to have a look at how it's done. > > > > No I did not, and thought we were actually hoping to get > rid of apache. > > What we want to get rid of is the hijacking of any system > apache on port 80. It would be perfectly ok to run another > instance on another port, and if that's the easiest way to > deliver phone profiles, that's fine.
Would it be acceptable to make the hijacking ports 80 and 443 optional? i.e. Overrideable with configure build script arguments. 80 and 443 would be the defaults, and we'd use these in our ISO builds. But development environments and other non-ISO installs could use whatever ports are appropriate. But on any given install type we should hijack 80 and 443, unless there's a good reason not to. Using 80 and 443 will help keep the Provisioning URLs much more manageable, since the installer won't need to keep track of a port. I also like really like that you're redirected to the sipXconfig login page by simply entering the hostname into web browser. We need hijacking to achieve these. -Paul [email protected] _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
