[Cosmo-dev] Re: [Dev] Re: [Cosmo] Apple iCal & cosmo-demo

[Morgen Sagen]

On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Charles Wyble wrote:

>
> Can you clarify option 1? No HTTPS at all or no HTTPS for iCAL? If  
> no HTTPS for iCAL how would Cosmo know it is serving an iCAL  
> client? And then would it issue a re direct for every CalDAV call  
> made my the client? This seems to be very resource intensive.
> As for not having HTTPS at all, I would think that not having HTTPS  
> would be a detractor to cosmo adoption as a public (ie in the DMZ)  
> service.

By #1 I meant turn off port 443.  I don't really like this.

> Option 2 means that any changes you do have to be done three times.

No, changes would only have to be published once. There would only be  
one Cosmo instance running, but it would be listening to port 80 and  
port 443.  I don't like this either because what's the point of using  
port 443 (HTTPS) if you're going to allow port 80 (HTTP)?  Other than  
during development I mean -- it's very useful to be able to watch  
Chandler/Cosmo chat over port 80 for debugging purposes.