----- "Tom Evans" <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/10/8 Igor Galić <[email protected]>: > > ----- Tom Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If you did not also add a NameVirtualHost for *:80, then that is to > be > >> expected. If you don't do any IP/port based virtual hosting, then > it > >> is usually easiest to do: > >> > >> NameVirtualHost * > >> > >> <VirtualHost *> > > > > that's ambigous. a better practice is to use *:80 (when Listen-ing > on port 80) > > > > (I call FUD) > > What is ambiguous about it? Is it open to more than one > interpretation? What is better about using *:80, in your opinion > (since you seem to have one about it)?
I quote fajita, #httpd's bot: 17:04 <jMCg> namevirtualhost * 17:04 <fajita> Consider using NameVirtualHost *:80 instead, to avoid port overlap. 17:04 <jMCg> virtualhost * 17:04 <fajita> BAD because it makes things confused when making apache listen on multiple sockets/ports. Try to use <VirtualHost *:80>, for instance, unless one knows what they are doing. > It's two less characters to type, and means that however I configure > the Listen directives, or how I connect to the server, my list of > configured vhosts is applied correctly. The last part ``unless one knows what they are doing'' is important here. We see too many people who are incapable of configuring their vhosts, apachectl -S shows overlapping most of the time, so we're preaching this good practice wherever we can. I think a better long term solution would be to not allow a start of a server if apachectl -S returns warnings ;) > Tom i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: [email protected] URL: http://brainsware.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
