httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joshua Slive" <>
Subject Re: NameVirtualHost and <VirtualHost>
Date Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:53:37 GMT
On 6/11/06, Vincent Bray <> wrote:
> Hi,
> In response to this bug and the countless questions asked on #apache,
> I'd like to find some way to make /vhosts/name-based.html more
> explicit. The text currently states "The argument to the
> <VirtualHost> directive should be the same as the argument to the
> NameVirtualHost directive (ie, an IP address, or * for all addresses).".
> Matt Lewandowsky suggests changing that sentence to: "The argument to
> the <VirtualHost> directive must be the same as the argument to an
> already-defined NameVirtualHost directive (ie, an IP address, or *
> for all addresses)."
> Otherwise perhaps a box similar to "Main host goes away" with a
> caution message. Or, given that people often seem to skim the
> examples rather than reading the text, a block showing the right and
> wrong ways to do it.
> I'm rather new to this list, so apologies if this issue is old news.

Ummm... Giving an example of the wrong way to do it is almost always a
bad idea.  As you say, people skim, and some will skim right past the
place it tells you not to do it that way.

I'm not sure of exactly what confusion you are pointing to here.  The
bug report mentioned above is an example of someone just simply having
no idea what was included in his config file.  What is the exact
problem you are trying to solve?  In general, people who just follow
the example given don't have a problem.

But yes, I agree that the phrasing of that sentence could be a touch
more clear.  I think something more along the lines of "The argument
to the <VirtualHost> directive must match a defined NameVirtualHost
directive.  (In this usual case, this will be "*:80".)"


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message