NameVirtualHost and

[Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>]

Hi,
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33656
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.

noodl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: NameVirtualHost and

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vincent Bray wrote:
> Hi,
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33656
> 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 always +1 to more explicit examples, however, I'm (almost) always -1
on showing anyone the wrong way to do it. We've seen again and again
folks skimming for a grey box, cut-n-paste the example, and then ask why
it doesn't work. So we have a pretty firm policy about never showing the
wrong way to do it, even if it says in blinking red letters "WRONG WAY!!!"

So, yes, +1 to the changed phrasing and providing an example. Maybe it
will help.

- --
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEjXHWXP03+sx4yJMRAhdWAKCpblPE3TXfVPkMCbuitwAszxd+/ACgxKKT
Q8/t4KbCJ+WnXvtcgWbAB1w=
=1azf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: NameVirtualHost and

[Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>]

On 6/11/06, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33656
> 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".)"

Joshua.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org