Re: [RFC] unified port directive

On 06/11/2014 05:15 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote:
>> 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.

If the long-term plan is to replace all *_port option with a single
"port" or "listen" option, then I would like to hear why we should do
that. The analysis presented so far was specific to HTTP (including
HTTPS) so it does not really apply any more. Needless to say, the end
goal has significant influence on the new directive name and internal
code design.

For example, why replacing http_port and snmp_port with "port http" and
"port snmp" is better than having distinct protocol-specific directives
for those two protocols?

Replacing all current Squid directives with

  squid old_directive_name_here old_options_here ...

is obviously a bad idea. Thus, at some unknown point(s), merged
directives become worse than dedicated ones. I suspect the key here is
the amount of overlapping port options and typical configuration
combinations. Is there enough common things about all Squid listening
ports to warrant their merger?

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Wed Jun 11 2014 - 20:10:11 MDT