Fwd: [Lurker-users] updating cache

(Ooops, missed the list.)

On 4/24/06, Wesley W. Terpstra <wesley@terpstra.ca> wrote:

> Actually, they do...
> In some cases you need to use absolute URLs due to various annoying
> HTTP facts of life.
> However, a properly configured apache will always use the canonical
> name of the host.
>

Having UseCanonicalName enabled will cause Apache to force the URLs to use
the hostname. In his example of having external users going to a
fully-qualified host and internal going to a shortened name,
UseCanonicalName should be Off so that Apache leaves the browser's presumed
hostname as-is.

I'd say that the reverse of your statement is true. A "properly configured"
(if there is such a thing) Apache should have no pressing need to force a
certain hostname (especially in a LAN/WAN situation as above, hello relative
hosts/paths).


Silas

PS I'm not sending a birthday card, so have a lurker post instead. ;)
(Ooops, missed the list.)On 4/24/06, Wesley W. Terpstra &lt;
wesley@terpstra.ca&gt; wrote:

Actually, they do...In some cases you need to use absolute URLs due to various annoyingHTTP facts of life.However, a properly configured apache will always use the canonicalname of the host.

Having UseCanonicalName enabled will cause Apache to force the URLs to use the hostname.&nbsp; In his example of having external users going to a fully-qualified host and internal going to a shortened name, UseCanonicalName should be Off so that Apache leaves the browser's presumed hostname as-is.
I'd say that the reverse of your statement is true.&nbsp; A &quot;properly configured&quot; (if there is such a thing) Apache should have no pressing need to force a certain hostname (especially in a LAN/WAN situation as above, hello relative hosts/paths).
SilasPS I'm not sending a birthday card, so have a lurker post instead. ;)