Hi David,
Apologies for missing this when it was suggested originally.
Is there a particular use case you have in mind that requires the
generality provided by
the HostMatcher interface? (as opposed to the simpler name based
approach as Chris said)
Presumably, with HostMatcher, you would have to specify some way of
deciding what to do
if multiple hosts try to claim the same request etc. Also, there would
be a concern
whether it would scale performance wise.
Unfortunately, the fact that HttpsServer is a sub-class of HttpServer
means we'd have to
deal with the non-support of virtual hosts in Https, at runtime, rather
than at compile time.
But that is likely to be the case, whatever way this is done.
- Michael.
Christopher Hegarty - Sun Microsystems Ireland wrote:
Hi David,
I looked at the proposal and it looks pretty good, I just have a few
concerns.
HttpHost can be a virtual or real host, and HttpServer is an instance
of a HTTP server running a virtual host. I think this concept is used
in webservers like apache and Sun webserver. I always found it a
little confusing, and I'm a little concerned that it will just confuse
users of this simple http server API. Considering I wouldn't expect
may users to use this advanced feature.
I wonder if we could rework a simpler approach, maybe just simple name
based virtual server? Possibly:
HttpContext createContext(String host, String path, HttpHandler
handler)
Also, we need to think of the implications on HttpsServer.
Michael (cc'ed) is the author of this API. Maybe he has an opinion.
-Chris.
On 07/12/2009 11:23, Christopher Hegarty - Sun Microsystems Ireland
wrote:
This is certainly interesting. Let me take a look and I'll get back
to you later.
-Chris.
On 04/12/2009 20:17, David M. Lloyd wrote:
I've crafted a simple patch which extends the API of the embedded
HTTP server to support virtual hosts. The patch is designed to add
the new functionality without breaking existing implementations
which do not support virtual hosts, or code which uses the
HttpServer API today. It does not include an implementation;
however, the default implementation should be easy to extend, from a
brief look over the code.
The patch is attached. Please let me know what you think.
- DML
