It was thus said that the Great David Blomstrom once stated:
>
> Oops, I think I goofed. I should have clarified that
> these are for my LOCAL sites. All my online sites are
> insisde a folder named public_html.
>
> Do your comments still stand - is it a good idea to
> put my websites inside folders named public_html even
> on my computer?
It's neither here nor there. "public_html" came about as a means for
people with accounts on a Unix system to put their homepages. Back when I
was in college, with an account on the Computer Science and Engineering Unix
system, all a user had to do was create a "public_html" directory [1] in
their home directory (in my case, my home directory was "/home/spc", so my
website would served up from "/home/spc/public_html/"---for my friend Ken,
his home directory was "/home/ken" and his homepage would be
"/home/ken/public_html/") and was referenced via a URL like:
http://www.cse.fau.edu/~spc/
So that's where the "public_html" portion comes from (and in Apache, one
would do
UserDir public_html
<Directory /home/*/public_html>
# stuff to limit what could be done
# in the user's homepages
</Directory>
Now, on to your question---what directory you use really depends upon what
you need done with the site. For the sites that I directly control, I have
the following:
/http/spc/sites/
This directory contains all the sites I own (or host for my friends). The
"/http/" directory contains all web related data on the server, and the
"spc/" directory beneath that is where my sites are stored (there are
several different groups---this makes it easy to keep track of who owns
what). Under "sites/" I have, for example:
www.conman.org/
boston.conman.org/
bible.conman.org/
www.flummux.org/
dw.flummux.org/
www.hhgproject.org/
As you can see, some of my domains have (what I later learned were called)
sub-domains---I just treat them as seperate sites as far as Apache is
concerned. Under each of these I typically have:
htdocs/
cgi-bin/
Although I could have called both of these by other names---I could have
used "html", "httpdocs", "web", "public_html" or heck, even "Fred" if I
were so inclined.
Yes, the structure is a bit deep, but it allows me the ability to store
all data associated with a site under its own directory, even if not all of
it is directly served by Apache. For instance, under my boston.conman.org
site, I have:
htdocs/ # static pages for my blog
cgi-bin/ # CGI scripts
journal/ # where the templates and database (roughly)
# for my blog is stored.
This has all the information pertaining to my site "www.conman.org".
"/http" is the location of *all* the webpages served up by the server.
"spc" is where all *my* sites are stored (there are several groups here),
Within the "sites/" directory, I have directories for each site I serve up,
and inside
htdocs/ # web pages
cgi-bin/ # CGI scripts
The reason I include the full name instead of just the domain name is
because a few of my sites have sub-domains that have content---for instance
within
/http/spc/sites/boston.conman.org/
I have:
htdocs/ # static pages for my blog
cgi-bin/ # CGI scripts
journal/ # data files for my blog, including templates and
# entries
notify/ # scripts used to notify people via email when
# I make updates
Now, if what you have works, by all means, continue using it. My method
works for me (and I use this structure, more or less [2], across several
servers and about 1,200 sites), it may not for you.
-spc (There's more than one way to do it ... )
[1] If you are unsure what I mean by "directory", think "folder"---I
personally find the Windows stuff a bit confusing and prefer Unix.
[2] There are some groups where the structure is:
/http/<group>/<domain>/logs # log files
/http/<group>/<domain>/web # webpages
/http/<group>/<domain>/web/cgi-bin/ # CGI scripts
Similar to the structure I use, but just slightly different names
and a slightly different layout.
> Thanks.
>
> --- John Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > David Blomstrom wrote:
> > > This is how most of my virtual hosts are set up:
> > >
> > > <VirtualHost *:80>
> > > ServerName geoworld
> > > ServerAlias geoworld *.geoworld
> > > DocumentRoot c:\sites\geoworld
> > > </VirtualHost>
> > >
> > > However, I read somewhere that it's better to put
> > your
> > > sites inside a folder named public_html, then set
> > up
> > > your virtual host like this:
> > >
> > > <VirtualHost *:80>
> > > ServerName geozoo
> > > ServerAlias geozoo *.geozoo
> > > DocumentRoot c:\sites\geozoo\public_html
> > > </VirtualHost>
> > >
> > > Can anyone tell me if that's better and why? I've
> > set
> > > a couple sites up like that, and everything seems
> > to
> > > work OK, but I don't want to go to the trouble of
> > > changing all my sites if there's no real
> > advantage.
> >
> > The second alternative is probably better for most
> > installations.
> >
> > Remember that any file that lies under the document
> > root is potentially
> > visible to all the world. Any files that will never
> > be served via Apache
> > should not be under the document root. Having that
> > extra layer of
> > directories gives you more flexibility in organizing
> > and controlling
> > your files.
> >
> > Of course there's no reason why the document root
> > needs to be called
> > 'public_html' in particular.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> " from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
" from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
