Domain Access doesn't work with non-standard port

That line, by the way, is cribbed from Drupal's bootstrap.inc -- settings files can recognize different ports as desired.

Thanks for the patch, a little testing is required to make sure it doesn't break anything -- it shouldn't. You could, of course, register your domains as 8080.example.com.

Similar logic is in the settings includes for Domain Prefix and Domain Conf, so the patch would need to be extended to them.

I am also not sure why we need to support non-standard ports.

This has come up before -- the issue is for people who allow both port 80 and 8080 on the server. How do we handle those?

Patch is malformed. Please use UNIX formatted linebreaks and patch against HEAD.

http://drupal.org/patch/create

There was also an issue with Windows line breaks in the settings_domain_prefix.inc file.

This patch is actually against DRUPAL-5 not HEAD (HEAD is D6),

Seems to be working.

Here's the issue that I have -- and it needs research and feedback. The RFC for HTTP says that ports are part of the URL, and that port 80 is the default:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt

3.2.3 URI Comparison

   When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client
   SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire
   URIs, with these exceptions:

      - A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the default
        port for that URI-reference;

        - Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive;

        - Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;

        - An empty abs_path is equivalent to an abs_path of "/".

   Characters other than those in the "reserved" and "unsafe" sets (see
   RFC 2396 [42]) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX" encoding.

   For example, the following three URIs are equivalent:

      http://abc.com:80/~smith/home.html
      http://ABC.com/%7Esmith/home.html
      http://ABC.com:/%7esmith/home.html

Based on my quick read of that and of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt, I think the proper thing to do is _not_ to strip the port, if it exists, _unless_ it is port 80. I recall being asked by someone else to respect port 8080 as a different URL. We should not transpose the port (like Drupal bootstrap does); we should instead allow it as part of the domain identifier string.

Thus, if passed the url : http://example.com:8080, DA should report that as is -- and you should 'register' that domain string. This opens the possibility that http://example.com and http://example.com:80 are equivalent (as in the specification) but http://example.com:8080 is not.

The other idea that this brings up is an "alias registration" that lets you assign alternative domain strings to a single domain. For example, you might register port 8080 as an alias of example.com.

I am saying that people can configure their webservers so that example.com and example.com:8080 are different sites.

With the current logic, domain_init() would render example.com:8080 as 8080.example.com. With your patch, it would render as example.com. We probably just need to leave it alone as example.com:8080.

Currently, we do not account for this behavior.

Well, that's the standard. Here's an example.

For a while, I was running Ruby on Rails on LightPPD on my development machine. By default, Apache ran on localhost:80 and LightPPD ran on localhost:3000.

When you start talking about supporting non-standard configurations, you have to account for configurations that you might not use.

Now, I think that Drupal and DA already support non-standard ports. You just have to 'register' them differently.

If you look at the instructions for settings.php -- which DA copies -- you register port 8080 as 8080.example.com:

 * If you are installing on a non-standard port number, prefix the
 * hostname with that number. For example,
 * http://www.drupal.org:8080/mysite/test/ could be loaded from
 * sites/8080.www.drupal.org.mysite.test/.

Under this logic, DA already supports non-standard ports. If this doesn't work, then I might consider a patch. But I am hesitant to make changes to fix what might not be broken.

Yes. I agree. I'm wondering if we should separate the port the way we separate the scheme -- probably not.

Testing.

OK. I tested this by enabling the following apache ports: 80, 8080, 3000. And it seems to work fine.

You now register the port as part of the domain:

example.com
example.com:8080
example.com:3000

Are all valid.

The patch for D6 will be very very similar.

Committed to HEAD and 5-dev.

Thanks!

Something similar: #568508: Domain Access doesn't work with non-standard port (6.x)