Hello!
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 02:39:45PM -0700, Yichun Zhang (agentzh) wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> >
> > I don't thinks that it's a good idea to disallow configurations
> > with multiple http{} blocks. While this wasn't claimed to be
> > supported, it allows fun things like running multiple
> > configuration isolated, and e.g. makes merging configs from
> > multiple servers much easier.
> >
>
> Is this going to get officially supported?
May be. At least it's not something should be officially
disallowed, I think.
[...]
> > AFAIR, as of now only one of standard modules has problems with
> > this - embeeded perl, and it has appropriate "caveat emptor"
> > clause in it's documentation.
> >
>
> Are you suggesting 3rd-party modules should always put a similar
> caveat in their documentation too? That's kinda sad and can lead to
> more confusions in the future because not every user reads the whole
> documentation carefully enough. I hope we can have a better solution
> here.
No, I just said that all non-experimental official modules can
cope with multiple http{} blocks, and this is another reason to
not disallow multiple http{} blocks, but find a better solution
instead.
--
Maxim Dounin
http://nginx.org/en/donation.html
_______________________________________________
nginx-devel mailing list
nginx-devel@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
