[vlc-devel] Factor HTTP/HTTPS/RTSP port in core

[Pierre Ynard]

> I don't believe you can get a correct purely boolean answer to the "Is
> this the same HTTP host" question? What if one host is unspecified,
> and another one is "0.0.0.0" ? What if one host is "localhost" and
> another one is "::1"? They _partially_ overlap. Too complicated to
> implement, and practically impossible to understand except for you and
> me.

We don't really need to consider hosts, do we? Just listening sockets.
If our concept of host sucks and is confusing, it should be good to get
rid of it.

> HTTP host names are typically used for for virtual hosting (the HTTP
> Host field), not for DNS resolution. Frankly, I'd rather we just bind
> VLC to both :: and 0.0.0.0 always.

Okay, you've got a point here.

> How do you configure the certificates? Currently, VLC can only use
> one certificate and key per HTTPd host. So per-chain / per-interface
> configuration did not work correctly.

Okay I see. It's either vhost configuration, or central, or I don't know
what.

> It's not my fault if VoD and telnet are ill-designed too. Feel free
> to fix them to two separate configuration options. Most daemons split
> those two things, including Apache with its Port and Bind directives.

I take it that for you, of all I said, separate options just are the way
to go...

> HTTP is consistent with file as far as both of them now expect a file
> path relative to the host (implicitly the local file system for file).

So two consistent items among access outputs. Even then, the access
output paradigm might not be the pinnacle of stream output syntax.

> They could be overriden with object variables, though glue code might
> be missing. I considered using a fixed table of three hosts (HTTP,
> HTTPS, RTSP) instead of a linked-list.

Okay. I'm glad that you say that now because when I mentioned it earlier
you dismissed it.

> I still have not heard much of a real use case for using different
> port numbers in the same VLC instance for the same protocol. Shorter
> URL is not a good use case in my opinion. I won't mention binding
> addresses again.

If people like using ports rather than paths, let them do it. (And
some do.) But if you want a more rational reason for doing it, there's
broadcasting a live stream on different ports to reach people who are
restricted by firewalls. And yes, I've seen that.

-- 
Pierre Ynard
"Une âme dans un corps, c'est comme un dessin sur une feuille de papier."