On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess we just got unlucky when this overlap was "fixed" before since
>> the order is not deterministic. I don't think we'll break anyone by
>> making wstunnell try first.
>
> I'm not sure the different schemes ("https" vs "wss") would allow both
> handlers to run successively.
>
> r->filename is built once for all (proxy_trans), so mod_proxy_http
> would DECLINE "wss://" and same for mod_proxy_wstunnel with
> "https://";.
>
> I proposed Upgrade handling in mod_proxy_http (a while ago, see [1]),
> which is IMHO a better way to deal with HTTP Upgrading in httpd...Doh, I guess at least having the order be deterministic is not harmful so I will leave in r1776290 Thanks for the hint. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
