Right.. it is extremely important because when IPv8 and IPv9 is going to mainstream, Camel will already be very popular ;)
But seriously now: I believe that an amount of magic increases when we see 'ANY' in a host part of URL and is lower when you see 0.0.0.0 (look at how 'netstat -an' shows ports bound to all interfaces). Not to mention about the fact that 'any' is a legal host name. What I'm curious about is how 0.0.0.0 would be handled in IPv6, but I guess the port will be opened on all interfaces however they are addressed - even if they have only IPv6 address assigned (but it is something I don't really know). If it is not, then your point about 0.0.0.0 and 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 is good. So my opinion here is -1 because of amount of magic that translates legal hostname to what is generally already handled by 0.0.0.0/0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0. Roman 2008/11/17 Trevv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Specifying "0.0.0.0" isn't as good as specifying null, because when you > specify null you allow Sun's engineers (current or future) to make the > decision. They can choose to interpret null as meaning both INADDR_ANY > and IN6ADDR_ANY, and they can add IN8ADDR_ANY and IN9ADDR_ANY later. > > I think requiring a person to specify "0.0.0.0" and "0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0" > explicitly would cause some unnecessary brittleness. > > How about this convention? "jetty:http://any:1234/myPath"; in which > "any" or "ANY" means to specify null as the bindAddr, or to use one of > the ServerSocket constructors that don't require bindAddr. > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Jetty-and-Mina%3A-how-to-bind-to-%22anylocal%22-AKA-%22wildcard%22-address--tp20475674s22882p20536134.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
