Re: [RFC] unified port directive

On 11/06/2014 2:35 a.m., Francesco wrote:
>
> 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).
>

That was indeed the long term intention.

Amos
Received on Wed Jun 11 2014 - 11:16:06 MDT