>> Also, I've been thinking maybe we need to enable SeparateVirtualInterps
>> by default. I realize it's my own stupidity, but when developing in a
>> dev vs. production environment (usually on different virtual hosts), this
>> really hosed me up the other night until I figure it out. Is there
>> really a good reason someone would WANT all the interps to serve every
>> domain?
>
> 443 / 80 needn't be handled by different interpreters and a big site might
> have several names, like we also serve flightaware.co.uk, but the typical
> user of Rivet with more than one vhost would probably want separate
> interpreters and if they were big enough to need the other style they'd
> figure it out by then. Short answer, then, is it's OK with me.
It sounds like Massimo is in agreement as well. We should make
SeparateVirtualInterps the default and then add some information in the docs
about what this might mean and when you might want to turn it off, like in the
case of really big sites.
Although, I'm curious. I don't know exactly what the code says about this, but
does it handle virtual hosts based on the actual name of the requested host or
based on some Apache internals? For example, if you have:
<VirtualHost *:80>
ServerName foo.com
ServerAlias www.foo.com bar.com www.bar.com
</VirtualHost>
Does that all show up to Rivet as a single "virtual" host, or is Rivet
determining that each of those domain names is a separate virtual host? I
would think they should all show up as a single virtual host and get served the
same interp, but I don't know.
D
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: rivet-dev-unsubscr...@tcl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: rivet-dev-h...@tcl.apache.org
