On 12/8/2010 11:07 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > ... and assume overlaps are intentional opt-in to name-based vhosts? > > The selection algorithm would not change, meaning you'd still only be > selecting from the best ip-based match. > > We'd lose the warning about overlapping vhosts, and maybe incur some > overhead on mapping a vhost that was unintentionally showing up > multiple times. > > Just kicking the idea around since NVH seems to be tough for users to grok.
Just worked through this with a support tech today :) Absolutely +1. The optimization to skip NVH traversal is trivial; is vhost->next NULL?
