Aaron Mulder wrote: > Well, yes and no. It would be saying something like, there must be a > GBean to represent a virtual host, and that GBean must have a set of > host names associated with it, and any application can be associated > with that "defined virtual host". For Tomcat, this would be > effectively a HostGBean with all that entails. For Jetty, it would be > a GBean holding a list of Strings that get applied as virtual hosts > when the app is associated with that "defined virtual host". > > So it's not really limiting what you can do in Jetty per se, it's just > moving the list of host names out of the web plan and into a central > server-wide (or at least web-container-wide) configuration object.
This is sounding not-too-bad. I agree that the structure of hosts and virtual hosts is really a server configuration. It can be a pain to configure lots of virtual host aliases in lots of webapplications. I think it would be good to have a GBean that represents some kind of server end point. However, I think that it will need to have to support n real host addresses and n virtual (alias) host names. While a server may listen on 0.0.0.0 (all interfaces), it is a frequent requirement to have a webapp only on a particular set of interfaces. Thus jetty has both setHosts(String[]) and setVirtualHosts(String[]) on a context. Note this is also a bit orthoganol to the actual connectors running. A connector such as AJP13 can accept request from an apache instance. So the real host of the request may be different to the host that the connector is listening on. cheers
