Sander Temme wrote:
......
> Did you force it to 'Off' in 2.0? If you have it 'Off', you believe what
> the client sends you, or what you explicitly stashed in the server
> record by specifying it in the ServerName directive. In the newer
> server, we added the actual port the request came in on, which should
> match the information in the server_rec...
>
> In the other case, UseCanonicalName On which was default in the 2.0
> branch, we look first in the server_rec and then in the connection. You
> could possibly make a case for having the search order in the top of the
> if clause match the one in the bottom. This against trunk:
>
> ===================================================================
> --- server/core.c (revision 332799)
> +++ server/core.c (working copy)
> @@ -960,8 +960,8 @@
> * any are supplied (otherwise it will use the canonical name).
> */
> port = r->parsed_uri.port_str ? r->parsed_uri.port :
> + r->server->port ? r->server->port :
> r->connection->local_addr->port ?
> r->connection->local_addr->port :
> - r->server->port ? r->server->port :
> ap_default_port(r);
> }
> else { /* d->use_canonical_name == USE_CANONICAL_NAME_ON */
>
> That would probably better align with the principle of least astonishment.
>
+1 to the above.
-Paul
