On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Oct 14, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > > > > I like the above ones most.
IMO it would be better to have the sock: at the start, so that it is immediately obvious. Imagine that you'd had to scan a > 80 char URL with several url parameters for the "|", that's annoying and error-prone. Alternatively, use a hostname that really stands out, like _unix_ or _socket_. For the scheme I would actually prefer unix:, because that is what other programs use (X, socat), and there are a lot more different socket types than unix. If not that, I would still prefer sock: over file:, because it is IMHO more correct.
