On 13.03.09 12:19, Mark H. Wood wrote: > We have HTTPD 2.2 with several IP-based VirtualHost definitions. Now > one of our partners wants to add some name-based vhosts, and it would > be convenient to just keep using the same address:port as their > existing application. What I mean to do is just add another > VirtualHost for each application, a NameVirtualHost fingering the > address:port pair, and ensure that the existing vhost is parsed first > so it becomes the default for no-name requests. Will this work? Am I > nuts? If you use more virtual hosts on the same IP:port, it's called name-based virtual hosting, IP-based virtual hosting is the one you do NOT check for name, just for IP:port. Using name-based or ip-based virtual hosts is therefore mutually-exclusive - if you have one, you don't have tne another one (at least on the IP:port combination) > The description of the way the address:port name lists are built and > used seems to imply that I can get away with this. But then there's a > bit about name- and IP-based vhosts being unable to "interfere", which > makes me uncertain. Yes, you can get away with this. There should be no interferentions, unless you add new name-based virtualhost with host name someone used before to access the original, default virtual host. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@xxxxxxxxxxx ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
|