https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64997
Christoph Anton Mitterer <cales...@scientia.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Anton Mitterer <cales...@scientia.net> ---
Hmm yeah, that seems ok-ish, at least for (2).
I'd perhaps change:
> and the hostname:port
> combination is also checked prior to ServerName and ServerAlias
> checks for name-based virtual host
> resolution.
to
> and the hostname:port combination (if neither hostname nor port is the
> wildcard)
> is also checked (prior to names in ServerName and ServerAlias)
> for name-based virtual host resolution.
It does however not deal with (1) which I'd have done above with "(if neither
hostname nor port is the wildcard)"
And generally, hostname is also a bit ambiguous, since these names are not
necessarily canonical hostnames (actually that's what vhosting is all about)
but rather domain names.
Apart from that, maybe it's actually the behaviour that should be changed for
(2):
AFAIU, a vhost has two properties here:
a) the address/port combinations it would apply to
b) the domainnames matched against the HTTP Host header.
(a) is set with <VirtualHost>, (b) with ServerName/ServerAlias.
It's a bit strange that for the names set via ServerName/ServerAlias any
addr/port matched by the vhost fit, but not for the - conceptually identical -
names set via <VirtualHost>.
Cheers,
Chris.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org
