> De: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Enviado el: 23 de septiembre de 2002 10:47 > > From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > There is no difference, if one needs to map a Java context to > > one the alias of the default server, the only way to do it, > > is to think about the default server, exactly as any other > > VS, it has a name ( well in fact a namespace that includes > > localhost, any ip variation , the host name and some more), > > and do explicit mappings with the name to which one want to > > associate the Java Context, i see no problem with this.. > > > > I don't think so. > The default serverer should be namless, cause it can have > many aliases, > and the default port can vary. Also that way we could separate the > default and vhost settings. > We can do that using aliases. > So for the default we should assume that its name is *:*, > meaning we can > map and the specific port too. >
Another case for language impedance? ;).. The default host does have name, a namespace that includes everything not explictely configured as a VS, in any port the server listens.. > [uri:*] > alias=localhost > alias=127.0.0.1 > alias=63.251.56.142 > alias=www.apache.org > etc... > Ok, this defines the namespaces served by Default.. > But what if I wish that nothing from the default host be the Global > mapping. > Right now all the default mappings are also the global ones, which is > definitely bad, and you may have some vhosts that you wish _not_ to be > mapped to TC at all, but they will, cause of global mappings. > I dont think i understand you completely, but from my POV, it's irrelevant, we do want Global mappings? i think so, this is the way I_r.dll works right now, and we need to map such a functionality. With my proposal, can you map concrete Java Context to any of the aliases of default or all? yes we can.. > The global mappings should IMO be marker as such, just to ease the > config, but in general it's a bad idea, and the only benefit > is that it > promotes laziness ;). > As said, global aliases are a reminiscent of jk's isapi, and lazyness in some environments is not bad at all, think of mass VS hosting, do we need to define a globally used Java context for every VS? we shouldn't > Right now the i_r2 uses found_vhost/default which is very bad > cause the > SSL connections will get mapped to the TC too, and perhaps I > don't wish > to do that, but I cannot. > I've lost the clue here, can you rephrase it? Rigth now i_r2.dll ( as i_r.dll did) uses directly the Host header, i agree that this is inherently insecure, i will change this to use, the same that apche does, to use the host in the header, but the real port.. instead of directly the Host header.. are you talking about that? > Using the upper mechanism I could be able to specify the > > [uri:*:443] > > And that will force the alias:443 mappings. > > So: > > 1. Make the alias to work Ohh, never tried, are aliases buggy too? :)) In anycase i'm +1 in to have less bugs.. ;)) > 2. Get rid of Global settings as such (but can be enabled if > you put the > vhost as a alias to the default host) This makes life very complicated to old i_r users, neither it's the best for a mass vhosting enviroment.. until a better solution, i'm -1 in unsupport Global mappings.. > 3. Make the host:port parsing to work ok > > > > MT. Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
