On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:15 AM, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, kind of, but one could argue about this. ;-) > It seems to me that we are just at the grey line in-between here. > Maybe I should have added one more HTTP VirtualHost in my example, just to > settle it. It doesn't harm to have this NameVirtualHost directive. But it isn't needed either. Hence my remark. Alls NameVirtualHost does is tell the server to look at the Server header when receiving requests on the IP/Port combination mentioned, in order to distinguish between different virtualhosts on the same IP/Port. When you only have one virtualhost on the IP/Port combination you thus don't need this directive. Since you will normally only have one Virtualhost on the IP/Port combination you use for HTTPS you don't need the NameVirtualHost statement. Unless you are bleeding edge re SSL... Krist -- krist.vanbesien@xxxxxxxxx krist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Bremgarten b. Bern, Switzerland -- A: It reverses the normal flow of conversation. Q: What's wrong with top-posting? A: Top-posting. Q: What's the biggest scourge on plain text email discussions? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
|