On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Takashi Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
+1 -- Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
