On 11/06/2014 2:35 a.m., Francesco wrote: > > On 10 Jun 2014, at 16:29, Alex Rousskov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: >>>> On 06/08/2014 11:07 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>>>> I propose that we combine the http_port and https_port directives into >>>>> a single directive called "port" with the old names as aliases and an >>>>> option to select between TCP and TLS transport protocol. >> >>>> Just "port" is a bad name, IMO, because there are many other, non-HTTP >>>> *_ports in squid.conf. Consider using "http_port" name for both SSL and >>>> plain transports, with appropriate transport defaults (that may even >>>> depend on the port value!). >> >>> How about "listen"? It's consistent with apache, clear, and >>> protocol-neutral. >> >> Why is being protocol neutral a good thing for an HTTP-specific(*) port >> in an environment with many other protocol-specific ports? >> >> (*) In this context, both encrypted ("HTTPS") and plain ("HTTP") >> transport connections are assumed to carry the same transfer protocol: HTTP. > > Oh my bad. I had understood that it would eventually be a catch-all directive > for all squid service ports (possibly including FTP etc). >
That was indeed the long term intention. Amos
