On 06/11/2014 05:15 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote: >> I had understood that it would eventually be a catch-all directive >> for all squid service ports (possibly including FTP etc).
> That was indeed the long term intention. If the long-term plan is to replace all *_port option with a single "port" or "listen" option, then I would like to hear why we should do that. The analysis presented so far was specific to HTTP (including HTTPS) so it does not really apply any more. Needless to say, the end goal has significant influence on the new directive name and internal code design. For example, why replacing http_port and snmp_port with "port http" and "port snmp" is better than having distinct protocol-specific directives for those two protocols? Replacing all current Squid directives with squid old_directive_name_here old_options_here ... is obviously a bad idea. Thus, at some unknown point(s), merged directives become worse than dedicated ones. I suspect the key here is the amount of overlapping port options and typical configuration combinations. Is there enough common things about all Squid listening ports to warrant their merger? Thank you, Alex.