Re: [RFC] unified port directive

On 10 Jun 2014, at 16:29, Alex Rousskov <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2014 11:07 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>>> I propose that we combine the http_port and https_port directives into
>>>> a single directive called "port" with the old names as aliases and an
>>>> option to select between TCP and TLS transport protocol.
>
>>> Just "port" is a bad name, IMO, because there are many other, non-HTTP
>>> *_ports in squid.conf. Consider using "http_port" name for both SSL and
>>> plain transports, with appropriate transport defaults (that may even
>>> depend on the port value!).
>
>> How about "listen"? It's consistent with apache, clear, and protocol-neutral.
>
> Why is being protocol neutral a good thing for an HTTP-specific(*) port
> in an environment with many other protocol-specific ports?
>
> (*) In this context, both encrypted ("HTTPS") and plain ("HTTP")
> transport connections are assumed to carry the same transfer protocol: HTTP.

Oh my bad. I had understood that it would eventually be a catch-all directive for all squid service ports (possibly including FTP etc).

Sorry for misunderstanding.

        Kinkie
Received on Tue Jun 10 2014 - 14:36:05 MDT