On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:19:53 +0200 André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Eric Covener wrote: > > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:57 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > + <note type="warning"><title>Note</title> > > > > + <p>This directive will be ignored in a name-based virtual > > > > host context.</p> + </note> > > > > Useful to somehow clarify that if the connection matches a set of > > NameVirtualHost's, the KeepAliveTimeout from the first defined vhost > > in that set of NameVirtualhost's is used? I think it's still useful > > to tweak in that context. > > I agree that it would be generally desirable (it's a reference documentation > after all). But I think, it's pretty hard to explain if we want to avoid > confusion. People often don't even get the whole name based VH concept - > that's my experience at least. Humm, I agree. Well, what should I do? I tried to explain it, but it is hard for me. Should I revert r653856 and remove FixedInTrunk from PR36770 ? Or how about: -This directive will be ignored in a name-based virtual host context. +This directive may be ignored in a name-based virtual host context.
