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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel