Hi, Eric, Thanks a lot!
I see! Without NameVirtualHost, I will see the log message like "[warn] XXX VirtualHost overlap on port XX, the first has precedence" So, the NameVirtualHost detective is only useful for the same ip:port case (with different hostnames), right? In other words, if all the <VirtualHost> blocks have different ip:port pairs, there's no need to declare "NameVirtualHost" (since they can be differentiated by ip:port so that they are actually not name-based virtual hosting). Am I right? -- TY On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > > My question is on the other side: what will happen when a <VirtualHost> > is > > defined without NameVirtualHost? > > Then you won't be able to access two different configurations using > the same local ip:port with two different hostnames, which is what > name-based virtualhosting adds. > > NameVirtualHost is removed in 2.3/2.4 -- we now just treat overlaps as > implicit name-based virtual hosts (but lose the ability to report on > unintended overlaps of normal IP-based vhosts) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. > See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > " from the digest: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Tianyin XU, http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~tixu/
