Re: [RFC] unified port directive

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:29:01 -0600

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.

Alex.
Received on Tue Jun 10 2014 - 14:29:11 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jun 10 2014 - 12:00:11 MDT