httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@ast.cam.ac.uk (David Robinson)
Subject Re: problems with 99.bind patch
Date Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:47:00 GMT
>So I put up the patched server on our internal servers (which all run on 
>high ports and all use a multiplicity of virtualhosts) and found that 
>imagemaps on virtual hosts were broken.  Diving in, I found that
>the redirect URL, instead of pointing at something like
>
>Location: http://host.organic.com:2222/resources/
>
>ended up pointing at
>
>Location: http://host.organic.com:0/resources/
>
>I remembered something rather troubling in the 99.bind changelog, which 
>was
>
>"Change virtual hosts to not inherit their port setting from the main 
>server"
>
>Why is this needed?  True enough, when I put a "Port 3333" in the 
><Virtualhost> around the client having problems, imagemaps worked fine.  
>Can we have a new 99.bind which does not have virtualhost ports go to 0, 
>but instead inherit them from the main server?  If not, I'm afraid I'm 
>going to have to reverse my vote and give it a -1.
>
>Maybe having a week for this vote isn't such a bad idea after all...

I'm uploading a new patch, 99a.bind.patch.

This allows you to put the port in the <VirtualHost> directive, specifying
which ports this virtual host matches.

Thus
<VirtualHost 12.15.16.17:546>

will match requests on port 546, whereas

<VirtualHost 12.15.16.17>

will match requests on any port, but still has the server_rec->port element
set to that of the main server. (I had to invent a server_rec->host_port
element to store the matching port.)

So you should now avoid using the Port directive in virtual host sections.

This patch should also fix the Linux compilation problems.

 David.

Mime
View raw message