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.
>
> Maybe we need some "expert knowledge" boxes or something.
>
How about this attached patch?
I know there may be someone who will be confused
but I think the patch is better than there's nothing explained about
name based vhost or at least than now
because this is a reference documentation as you said.
Index: core.xml
===================================================================
--- core.xml (revision 654983)
+++ core.xml (working copy)
@@ -1561,9 +1561,10 @@
higher the timeout, the more server processes will be kept
occupied waiting on connections with idle clients.</p>
- <note type="warning"><title>Note</title>
- <p>This directive will be ignored in a name-based virtual host
context.</p>
- </note>
+ <p>In a name-based virtual host context, the value of the first
+ defined virtual host (the default host) in a set of <directive
+ module="core">NameVirtualHost</directive> will be used.
+ The other values will be ignored.</p>
</usage>
</directivesynopsis>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
