Thomas Charron
Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:11:02 -0700
On 10/9/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/9/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + apr_socket_bind(*newsock, conf->bind_addr) != APR_SUCCESS)
> > {
> Right, I did RTFS. But it looks like that is done in the context of
> a "worker". For example:
>
> + if (worker->bind_addr != NULL &&
> + apr_socket_bind(newsock, worker->bind_addr) != APR_SUCCESS) {
> I don't what a "worker" is, but it doesn't sound like the same thing
> as a "virtual host" to me. It sounds more like a worker thread. And
> worker threads are not, as far as I know, specific to any given
> virtual host. So that would imply it's a global option, and the code
> is just setting up the binding for each worker process (for when that
> process is spawned).
The options are copied in while it's being used. > I could be way off base here, of course, but do you know what a > "worker" is? Or have you uses this in the manner described, and so > can say from experience it works this way? (Arguably the better > situation anyway, since nothing beats practical experience of the > "Yes, I've done this, and it works" variety.) I've used that patch before, but honestly, I was only changing the source address globally to be different then what Apache was listening on. > > It's configuration is local to the definition, so if in a > > VirtualHost, it will use a different one for each VirtualHost. > What part of the code distinguishes a global option for an option > which can be used inside a VirtualHost? It's overridden for any local overrides, which VirtualHosts do. > As I said, I'm not at all familiar with Apache internals, but > unexplained proclamations aren't changing that. :-) :-P Not a problem. In the end, it may be a moot point, because it doesn't appear to actually be present in 2.x currently. :-( -- -- Thomas _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/