Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
* Carsten Ziegeler:
There were several suggestions in this thread about
configuration on your side.
Indeed, Upa was right in suggesting that we use Apache as
a proxy with ProxyPass directive. The server name
* Carsten Ziegeler:
Jean-Baptiste, is your problem now solved with all the
configuration tips?
No sorry, we have a dozen sites in production, we can't afford
to change the server settings now, we prefer keeping an old
version of DefaultLinkService in WEB-INF/classes.
Sorry for the subject of my message, you're right we can't
work together properly with such an aggressive tone. However
just to be clear, I reread the two messages I sent to you
privately with subject « Error on LoginAction » and « Error on
CachingURICoplet », and I find
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
The current svn is a development version
That's where we don't agree. I thought 2.1 was a stable branch,
intended for fixing bugs. And that's why we update on that
branch, to get fixes. I get the impression that the portal block
is not as stable
* Carsten Ziegeler:
There were several suggestions in this thread about
configuration on your side.
Indeed, Upa was right in suggesting that we use Apache as
a proxy with ProxyPass directive. The server name used to
access the application is not the same as
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
Indeed, Upa was right in suggesting that we use Apache as
a proxy with ProxyPass directive. The server name used to
access the application is not the same as the one returned by
request.getServerName().
I'm not sure, but I think ProxyPass
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
Indeed, Upa was right in suggesting that we use Apache as
a proxy with ProxyPass directive. The server name used to
access the application is not the same as the one returned by
request.getServerName().
I'm not sure,
Upayavira wrote:
Then you need to use something like Via, or proxy to the correct
hostname, or pass a key in with the request that specifies what domain
it is associated with.
Yes, that's true. Fortunately most ways of doing virtual hosts have
this possibility, so imho there is no need
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
Sorry for the subject of my message, you're right we can't
work together properly with such an aggressive tone. However
just to be clear, I reread the two messages I sent to you
privately with subject ??Error on LoginAction?? and ??Error
