On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 03:29:24PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Bugger. Does anyone actually *use* port-based virtual hosting?
> www.spi-inc.org has a very minimal port-based setup: if you connect
> without using ssl to nm.spi-inc.org it redirects you to the ssl
> site.
And some sites offer the same content over HTTP and HTTPS (80, 443).
The FQDN in the path to the DocumentRoot should be sufficient for 99% of
the time. Beyond that we get into a maze where some DocumentRoots are
available with the same FQDN and different ports, and some are the same
FQDN, different port(s), and different content.
We *could* use /var/www/the.host.name{.|/}port/, but I feel this is getting
messy. You would then have a set of symlinks for common content on different
ports.
drwxr-xr-x /var/www/www.debain.org/80/
lrwxr-xr-x /var/www/www.debian.org/443 -> 80/
drwxr-xr-x /var/www/www.debian.org/4443/
And you still not know if what protocol this is using. 443 *could* just be
HTTP. Heck, they could all be HTTPS...
FQDN is reasonable sane as a *default*. Obviously leaving this to the local
administrator to determine based on their needs is important, and possibly
the only acceptable solution.
*ponderous*
James
--
James Bromberger <james_AT_rcpt.to> www.james.rcpt.to
Remainder moved to http://www.james.rcpt.to/james/sig.html
Attachment:
pgpu2NhYoFGb5.pgp
Description: PGP signature