On 10/19/07, Mark Drummond wrote: > > I have Apache sitting in front of some WebSphere app servers. So far, we > have always used virtual hosts in Apache to give each application it's own > FQDN. So we have app1.foo.com , app2.foo.com etc. This is leading to a > (small) proliferation of FQDNs, and now I am wondering if it is better to > have a single FQDN and use URIs to separate the applications. In other > words, going to www.foo.com/app1, www.foo.com/app2. So now I am trying to > figure out the pros and cons, and looking for some input on how others are > doing this. > > The way I see it, separate FQDNs for every application require more > administration. Because we are doing SSL everywhere I have to use IP based > virtual hosts so I'm creating new interfaces and allocating new IP addresses > for every new application. And then every app requires it's own certificate. Using a wildcard certificate (*.foo.com) would be an alternative to IP-based vhosts. http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/WildcardCertificates --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
|