[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What about virtual hosting facility?



hey,

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 12:06:43PM +0200, Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
> The bug submitter complains about the fact that the webapp comes as a
> standalone web site and uses an url prefix like '/bugzilla' for every
> static urls needed (link to css pages or images).

is this an absolute reference in the actual pages, or just what
the apache config aliases it to?  would it not work in a vhost
using the same /bugzilla alias?

what i've done in nagios is to change all the references of "/nagios/foo"
in the html pages to "foo".  this allows nagios to work in a vhost
without a leading /nagios, or on another site in a possibly more deeply
nested and/or differently named directory.

> I'm also wondering what is the best severity for bugs like "Your foo
> webapp package does not provide any Virtual Hosting facility".

well, there's a difference between providing a vhost facility and
not being able to be vhosted.  i'd say the former is wishlist and
the latter somewhere between wishlist and serious, depending on
what we decide.  

to make sure an app is vhost-able, i don't think that much more needs
to be done other than removing all hard-coded and non-configurable
absolute references in the code.  maybe we could say something to
that effect?


	sean

-- 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: