On 5/6/07, Dave Henderson wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I have another question. This one is just to maintain uniformity and is
> not a must. I adjusted the apache server that doesn't contain the user
> database (site2) to use the database at site1 by redirecting the login.html
> to login.server.com. This is working just fine when people access the
> site2's apache server. If the people use the site1 apache server, no
> redirection is required (obviously), but I would like the url to remain
> consistant between the two sites when people access the webpage. Is there a
> way to mask the url on site1's apache server to read as login.server.com
> instead of the actual server name. I already have dns setup and working
> correctly (since site2 works fine), I would just like this to be uniform.
Just use a normal name-virtual-vhost configuration to setup
login.server.com as a virtual host on the site2 machine (evidently
sharing all the same configuration as site2). Then do a redirect from
the site2 virtualhost to the login virtual host, just as you did on
site1.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
" from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joshua,
The site2 is working fine and redirecting correctly. It is site1 that
contains the userdata that I would like to "redirect". I did try to use the
redirect statement on the site1 server, but that didn't work. It gave me the
following error:
The page isn't redirecting properly
Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this
address in a way that will never complete.
I am thinking there is an endless loop thats happening since the redirect is
redirecting requests for the login.html to go to the same computer acessing the
same document. Everytime it requests that document, it redirects it. I tried
using a ServerAlias directive, but that didn't work either. Wouldn't that have
accomplished the same goal as creating an entirely new virtual-vhost in this
situation?
Thanks,
Dave
