> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I agree that my patch is buggy in the case of a request
> coming from 80 or 443, but if we want to support port bases V
> hosting, we need to pass it down, if not
>
> [uri:www.something.com:8080/somecontext]
>
> Definitely will not work (this not works now i.e).. so to
> pass the port as part of the hostname is needed when port is
> different from 80 and 443..
>
I agree to that. I know that neither my patch is perfect, but...
We can use the sheme://hostname[:port] parsing but that has to go in the
server part of the connector.
The apache will give you same r->hostname no matter what the port number
is.
I was thinking to make those vhost mappings more like uri mappings.
Like:
[uri:vhost1:*]
Will map all the port numbers so we can even use the port 0 (default
one).
Or more selective
[uri:vhost1:8080]
Will map only the 8080 port of the vhost1
>
> 1) globals ( for all VS and Default ) and
> 2) particular ( for a concrete VS or Default )
>
> This needs to do 2 passes for the mapper, one for the
> particular mappings with host+port ( if not 80 or 443 ) as
> vhost, and if none found other for the Global mappings with
> NULL as vhost.. that is what isapi does..
>
Yes, but this will need to change the init phase not the map phase. If
we provide the hostname to the uriMap it has to map that vhost.
Global mappings should explicitly be defined, not assumed, because you
will not be able to differentiate default and virtual hosts.
MT.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
