From: "Kornél Pál" > > To successfully allow applications to > > use the same port on different IP > > addresses, you must use a new utility, > > Httpcfg.exe. >
> I don't agree with MUST I believe, in this "one" article (for 98 percent of the non coding admins) the word "must" is correct for the new way to control Windows ports. This article does not "mean" for "everyone" this is the only way. Always ask who is this article written for? Then add your own know how in order to use the article information or not. > as it uses > HTTP API and it's source code is > available as well. > See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/http/http/httpcfg_exe.asp > Doc words are "a pain" but one "may need" HTTPcfg.exe.... For those current "processes" that do not know about this HTTP device, (and non coders), in order to may be work with HTTP.SYS. This doesn't mean it will always work, that is why "some" may need to rewrite their code. :) > > So I guess the real question is has one > > tried Apache and IIS with Windows Server > > 2003 or Windows XP SP2 via HTTP.SYS? > > Windows XP SP2 includes HTTP API > however IIS 5.1 doesn't use it (uses > Winsock) so this option doesn't exist, Not in the same way as > but on Windows Server 2003 with IIS > 6.0 it's a real opportunity. But Apache and IIS 5.1 "do not talk together" but "possibly may share" together a device on the non server OS of Windows XP SP2 RC2. Remember when one "works" with Apache and Microsoft docs, one "must" _always_ "read between the lines and work differently (with the docs)" in order to do stuff in a different way. Always take each doc for it's "slant" on what it is talking about. There may be other articles that "suggest" other ways. :) Jeff
