--On Dienstag, 30. Juli 2002 9:28 Uhr -0700 Brian Degenhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nobody is forcing virtual host users to use the new functionality, they can still do path based ProxyPassReverse statements that will assume the virtual host's domain name. However, I think it would be unfortunate to disable this additional functionality to everybody in order to prevent virtual host users from misusing the new functionality.
True too ....
-bmd
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 01:59:22PM +0200, Manon Goo wrote:I do not think it is a good idea to be able to configure someting inside a virtual host that tragets URLs outside it. This is fine in the "server config" or in a _default_ virtual host but nowhere else. especialy in enviroments whith many virtual hosts, vhost in diffrent includefiles edited by different persons.
Manon
--On Dienstag, 30. Juli 2002 13:16 Uhr +0200 Martijn Schoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > The new config will use the target specified in the > config file 'as-is' and thus has no further link to > any virtual host or internal configuration what so- > ever. > > Greets, > Martijn > > Manon Goo wrote: > >>> also.. what about virtual hosts.. doesn't requiring them to have a >>> hostname break them? > > Doe the new config allow to target URLs outside of the scope of a > virtual host directive if > used within a virual host section ? > >> >> There is no requirement to have a hostname - the old behaviour still >> holds. >> > > > -- > ------ WARNING: This signature contains a VIRUS ! ------- > - SHLRUIOHUIOWHLNNMSKHKDLWINDOWSJHFHKJLLUIHEKJLNDHKKJHL - > --------------------------------------------------------- >
pgppq875InRQy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
