On 08/23/2013 03:50 AM, Jordan Pittier wrote: > Hi, >> I'm concerned that setting port 80/443 as the default may be misleading >> to the average user. > Yep, you're right. But the patch is not really defaulting to port 80 or 443, > it's more like a "fallback" port if window.location.port is empty. > window.location.port still have precedence.
Right; I guess my point was that I think the original code may also be misleading; that there perhaps should have been no fallback port at all. > >> In general, the port we need to specify is going to connect to a >> websockify daemon, which will relay it on to a spice server. > Yep, again. In my setup, we don't want to expose the websockify daemon on the > internet, it is hidden behind an Nginx reverse proxy. Nginx listen on port > 443 and forward all the HTTP traffic to the right backend based on the > content of the HTTP "Host:" header. The websockify daemon runs on a dedicated > VM with a dedicated hostname. > >> That is, will nginx and/or >> Apache intelligently relay a ws:// protocol request to an alternate port? > Exactly. Ah, interesting. That does strike me as a reasonable configuration (and perhaps even one we should advocate). I have gone ahead and added a comment to your patch to note that, and then pushed it. Thanks for the contribution! Cheers, Jeremy _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
