Aengus wrote:
> "Randall A. Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> LOGFILE c:\winnt.sbs\system32\LogFiles\W3svc3\ex* http://www.%v.poco.org
>> LOGFILE c:\winnt.sbs\system32\LogFiles\W3svc4\ex* http://sportsflight.com
>> LOGFILE c:\winnt.sbs\system32\LogFiles\W3svc5\ex*
>> LOGFILE c:\winnt.sbs\system32\LogFiles\W3svc6\ex* http://www.%v.uslex.net
>
> The second parameter to the LOGFILE command isn't used for the VHOST
> report, it's simply used as a prefix for the request report (so that you
> can tell www.server1.com/index.htm from www.server2.com/index.htm for
> instance). The VHOST report is generated from the cs-host field in your
> logfiles.
Just from a usability perspective, Stephen, why not? Users seem to
expect that a virtual host listed on the LOGFILE command will end up in
the Virtual Host report. I know you previously have said that the second
argument to the LOGFILE command is a path-related argument and is not
strictly virtual-host specific, but why not build the Virtual Host
report out of the initial request information for all requests that
match "REGEXP:^http://[^/]+"?
--
Jeremy Wadsack
Wadsack-Allen Digital Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
