Re: [Bodington-developers] Abolute URLs - Bug or Bug Fix?

[Sean M. <se...@sm...>]

Uhmm, why reinvent the wheel? Mod_proxy for Apache, in front of your  
tomcat?

s.


On 2 Oct 2006, at 14:42, Jon Maber wrote:

> Matthew Buckett wrote:
>> The primary advantage is that you no longer have to configure  
>> Bodington
>> to get it running. This makes the quickstart just work. It also  
>> means if
>> you decide to change the hostname that Bodington is deployed under  
>> you
>> don't have to perform any reconfiguration other than to your servlet
>> container.
>>
> So how about one or two extra bodington.properties entries for my use?
>> Why would you want to serve a Website up under several names?
>> I can see this may have been an argument 5 years ago when there where
>> clients that didn't support HTTP/1.0 and so didn't work with virtual
>> hosts but this is 2006. Hosting a website under multiple domains  
>> leaves
>> you a little exposed to spoofing attacks as users no longer rely on
>> looking at the URL bar to determine if they are at the correct site.
>>
> You may not _want_ to have multiple names but sometimes you don't  
> get a
> choice.  My problem is that the server is also 'localhost' which I was
> using in my Apache configuration.  However the problem for others is
> that the official name might change - e.g. Bodington Common at  
> Leeds was
> on www.fldu.leeds.ac.uk but a new name vle.leeds.ac.uk was adopted.  
> The
> old alias is needed to handle links into the VLE from other web sites
> but the new name is the official one.  The multiple names will also
> occur if the physical server has multiple functions, e.g.
> mail.uni.ac.uk, www.uni.ac.uk etc.  The configured server name forces
> the user to access the proper url.
>> I can see that this is a valid use of the old setup and hadn't  
>> though of it.
>>
>> It should be reasonably easy to support using the  
>> bodington.properties
>> if they are set and if not falling back the request properties.
>>
> That would also require a change to the setup servlet since setting  
> the
> port numbers and server name seems to be compulsory.
>> Have you considered using AJP rather than mod_proxy which will  
>> preserve
>> the orginal URLs (I believe) so you don't hit this problem.
>>
>> http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-5.5-doc/connectors.html
>>
> I did and I can't remember why I rejected it. Possible because  
> mod_proxy
> is very easy to set up.
>> It was previously an undocumented feature ;-)
>>
> O.K., how about this;  change the text of the setup servlet to  
> indicate
> that the server name is only required if the users could access the
> server using multiple names.  Then the code that constructs absolute
> URLs for inclusion in HTML can use the server name in the properties
> file but if not set use the server name in the request. Similarly the
> port numbers - use the values from the properties file if available.
>
> There is still a problem with your no-configuration option.  When the
> user is switched from non-secure to secure for their password how can
> you determine the right port number if it isn't configured by the
> sysadmin using setup servlet?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to  
> share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn  
> cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? 
> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Bodington-developers mailing list
> Bod...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers
>