Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of haroon.rafique@utoronto.ca
 designates 128.100.132.42 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:00:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Haroon Rafique <haroon.rafique@utoronto.ca>
To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: SOLVED [ANN] Apache Tomcat JK 1.2.26 Web Server Connector
 released
In-Reply-To: <47A0A98D.7080407@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801301259070.15121@haroon.sis.utoronto.ca>
References: <476FD1EE.40607@apache.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801291401210.31087@haroon.sis.utoronto.ca>
 <479FAF7B.2070401@kippdata.de>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801301017040.6761@haroon.sis.utoronto.ca>
 <47A0A98D.7080407@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Today at 5:45pm, MT=>Mladen Turk <mturk@redhat.com> wrote:

MT> [..snip..]
MT> 
MT> Hmm, you might be hitting the point here. When tightening up the vhost 
MT> mappings we probably overlooked the SSL (or any other protocol) 
MT> scenario, where the actual vhost is the same, only the protocol is 
MT> different. However since the SSL is inside vhost and can have its own 
MT> native mappings it complies to the vhost concept. Anyhow, you made me 
MT> think that we should probably fine-tune our vhost separation beyond 
MT> actual Httpd vhost concept by checking the actual vhost name and 
MT> protocol. In case only the protocol is different we should treat them 
MT> as one regarding jk mounts thought.
MT> 
MT> Regards
MT> 

Thanks, Mladen,

Posted to dev list with new subject (now that I know what the problem is).

Cheers,
--
Haroon Rafique
<haroon.rafique@utoronto.ca>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org