Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

'flash policy port' option broken #447

Closed
insidewhy opened this issue Aug 5, 2011 · 5 comments
Closed

'flash policy port' option broken #447

insidewhy opened this issue Aug 5, 2011 · 5 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@insidewhy
Copy link

Both of these fail to set the flash policy port as per the documents and issue the standing warning about not being able to listen on 843.

var io = require('socket.io').listen(app, { 'flash policy port': 1025 })
io.configure(function () {
    io.set('transports', [ 'flashsocket', 'websocket', 'htmlfile', 'xhr-polling' ])
    io.set('flash policy port', 1025)
})
@3rd-Eden
Copy link
Contributor

3rd-Eden commented Aug 5, 2011

But does

io.configure(function () {
    io.set('flash policy port', 1025);
    io.set('transports', [ 'flashsocket', 'websocket', 'htmlfile', 'xhr-polling' ])
});

work?

(note adding options to the listen does not work yet in the latest build)

@insidewhy
Copy link
Author

Curious.. the above example actually works..

The issue is when you set 'transports' before 'flash policy port'. Perhaps this is intentional but it confused me a great deal.

@3rd-Eden
Copy link
Contributor

3rd-Eden commented Aug 5, 2011

Well, I think your original example also worked, you just got that debug information because by default the port is set to 843.

When you include the flash socket inside the transports we will automatically start up the policyserver and start listening on the set port.
And when you change the port we kill the current server, and start it up again with the new port.

On Aug 5, 2011, at 1:45 PM, tuxjay wrote:

Curious.. the above example actually works..

The issue is when you set 'transports' before 'flash policy port'. Perhaps this is intentional but it confused me a great deal.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#447 (comment)

@insidewhy
Copy link
Author

No I just tested and my initial example doesn't work. If you switch the port/transport setting then the flash policy server is not restarted on a new port (confirmed with telnet).

@3rd-Eden
Copy link
Contributor

3rd-Eden commented Aug 5, 2011

Thanks for checking it out, marking this issue as bug & flashsocket as it should kill the existing server and restart it with the new port.

This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants