Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of graham.dumpleton@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.45 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=DxfMRJKuQ1iMOa03Ywi4jy90IDu0BNnVogWsOYJ4nB9wrVLluiLD4kZO0dgx9ME5Hz
         5+rBtiEIq/QmNUqt+jckwkIiVqhshggFuphCOwbOfNdbJcd5bt9zJiCkmb0n9WuRNdQW
         tvuG6ZSSQ0Fyelk87BRL6f5TXeE0blJ5b6Pf8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201008042157.26413.sf@sfritsch.de>
References: <yuamxt3ucjb.fsf@kabuki.mynet>
	<201008042157.26413.sf@sfritsch.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:00:33 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikMQGgquZrPhYYLk5QhuBRWVaSmTs9CuH7wL8-s@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Failing startup for vhost configuration problems
From: Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumpleton@gmail.com>
To: "dev@httpd.apache.org" <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thursday, August 5, 2010, Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 August 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
>> I'd like to propose that in 2.3/2.4, we fail startup for any of the
>> virtual host misconfigurations for which behavior is undefined but
>> right now we only issue a warning.
>>
>> E.g. no VirtualHosts matching a NameVirtualHost, overlapping
>> VirtualHosts, use of _default_ in NameVirtualHost, mixing * and
>> non-* ports in name-based virtual hosts.
>>
>> The rationale is that these configurations are unsupported, the
>> behavior is undefined, and presumably they are the result of
>> errors, so better to make sure the admin corrects the error than
>> to continue and probably not behave as the admin expects.
>>
>> A new major version seems like a good time for a change like this.
>
> Makes sense. If one of the restriction turns out to be too painful in
> practice, we can always allow that case again.

Perhaps warnings around bad MPM configuration can be reviewed as well.
>From memory it doesn't at the moment warn you when something like
StartServers is set over what it can be based on MaxClients and
ThreadsPerChild. I think it may just silently reduce the value. Since
MPM settings are often misunderstood, better hints about bad
configuration there would be useful.

Graham