Which one?
sock://var/run/server.sock|http://localhost/foo/bar
or
http://localhost/foo/bar|sock:/var/run.s.sock
I guess we could say that the path info for the "segment" that
provides the communication scheme (http://localhost/... above),
if any, is ignored.
eg:
http://localhost/|sock:./rel/dir/s.sock
ajp://localhost/ignored/path|sock:/var/run/a.sock
Heck, we could even do away w/ sock: and use file: which
people understand has relative and abs paths, lacks
host, etc... Plus, we avoid creating any "additional"
scheme ;)
On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The original proposal look more intuitive. Especially the relative path in
> the ajp example
> looks hard to understand for the not so experienced.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Jagielski
>> Sent: Montag, 14. Oktober 2013 15:08
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: uds support
>>
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Committed in r1531340 the above is implemented... kinda.
>>> I instead went with
>>>
>>> http://localhost/foo/bar|sock:/var/run.s.sock
>>>
>>> which worked out just a bit cleaner...
>>
>> After playing around the above, I find that it's hard to
>> come up with a consistent and logical (non-surprising)
>> way to merge the 2 paths in the 2 uris... especially
>> when you consider that ap_runtime_dir_relative()
>> should really be applied as well.
>>
>> Soooooooo
>>
>> I'm proposing that we simply drop the "sock:..."
>> part and use 2 things as the "this is a UDS"
>> trigger:
>>
>> 1. hostname is 'localhost'
>> 2. the '|' is the last char of the URL
>>
>> eg:
>>
>> ajp://localhost/./rel/dir/foo.sock|
>> http://localhost/var/tmp/s.sock|
>>
>> Comments?
>
