Hi,
Does it make sense we register the AJP port to IANA?
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
--- Begin Message ---
On 7/28/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: jfclere
Date: Fri Jul 28 16:54:20 2006
New Revision: 426711
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=426711&view=rev
Log:
Add AJP for Tomcat for example.
Modified:
apr/apr-util/trunk/include/apr_uri.h
apr/apr-util/trunk/uri/apr_uri.c
Modified: apr/apr-util/trunk/include/apr_uri.h
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr-util/trunk/include/apr_uri.h?rev=426711&r1=426710&r2=426711&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- apr/apr-util/trunk/include/apr_uri.h (original)
+++ apr/apr-util/trunk/include/apr_uri.h Fri Jul 28 16:54:20 2006
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@
#define APR_URI_NFS_DEFAULT_PORT 2049 /**< default NFS port */
#define APR_URI_TIP_DEFAULT_PORT 3372 /**< default TIP port */
#define APR_URI_SIP_DEFAULT_PORT 5060 /**< default SIP port */
+#define APR_URI_AJP_DEFAULT_PORT 8009 /**< default AJP port */
You know, I didn't actually know this until I saw this commit, but it
turns out that port 8009 isn't actually officially assigned to anyone,
AJP appears to have started using it without asking the IANA for
permission first.
For what it's worth, it appears that one can attempt to request a new
port assignment at the following url:
http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/usr-port-number.pl
Personally, I'm -1 on us adding support for any non-registered port
types in APR-Util's URL parser. Perhaps someone in the Tomcat
community can get in touch with the IANA and do the appropriate
begging and pleading for this port to be assigned to them, despite the
fact that they clearly failed to follow the rules when adopting it in
the first place.
=garrett
--- End Message ---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
