Joshua Slive <joshua <at> slive.ca> writes: > > On 1/17/06, Dave Turvene <dturvene <at> comcast.net> wrote: > > > Q1: How efficient is the RewriteCond? In another case I had three RewriteCond > > directives on a RewriteRule with no apparent impact but the server was not being > > heavily hit. > > The RewriteCond effect will be negligible in comparison to the > resource usage involved in proxying. It is simply one regex, compared > to generating a whole new request to a different server. If you are > concerned about resource usage, the first thing to look at is if the > proxy is really necessary, and if it could be cached at the proxy > server. Thanks, that makes sense. I'm running a Content Management System (CMS) behind Apache and need Apache for SSL, ACL, and other TLAs > > > Q2: Name-based hosting is the obvious choice, but HTTPS doesn't > > allow it. Is there a better way to do this, i.e. different handling for incoming > > HTTPS requests to the same server? > > It depends on what exactly you mean by "different handling". There is > no general answer to that question. Yeah, I should have been a little less vague. Here's the "different handling" part: 1) Apache to serve some pages for a subversion interface and 2) Apache to proxy some requests to the CMS server - both over the same SSL Virtual Host. My guess is from what you're saying, that the RewriteCond is probably a clean way to do this. At least it's not obfuscated. > > Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|