I've went one step further and built a little product that basically is a catalog-aware folder that asks for a sitename in the manage_add form. www.foo.com is converted into www_foo_com as the id (with www.foo.com as the title) on creation, and the thing adds itself to a "sites" catalog in the root folder that is used by an Access Rule to do virtual hosting. The advantage is that I don't have to go through any manual setup thingies in order to activate virtual hosts - a big advantage because I got a stack of dealers writing websites on our server and I don't want to play their typing clerk :-). Just Yet Another Way to handle it... (oh, and not having to play clerk comes out cheaper than saving a bit on an extra server ;-)) Jeff Peterson <jpeterso@the-bridge.net> said:
I see both good and bad based on perspective. On one hand, and correct me if I am wrong, he handles the whole of virtual hosting in Zope. I have not really thought of the benefits of this other than not needing apache or IIS et al, to do virtual hosting. On the other hand, using apache has benefits that I can see. First, using proxypass and site root is exceedingly simple once you know how to use it, you modify the apache conf file and add a site root object in Zope, no extra coding. With this method you have to deal with the hostname on your own, write the code and deal with the contingencies. Also, you can easily use apache to cache high overhead items and have apache serve them instead of Zope.