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 <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> 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: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Subject: Re: uds support >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> 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? >