*) Change: now locations are searched in a tree.
Can you please elaborate on what this means exactly? Does this mean that
locations can be nested? I think so. Now even the bigger question - can
multiple location blocks match or once one matches no others will apply?
Here is what I mean. I want this:
location conditionMain1 {
location conditionChild1 {
set some nginx config params;
}
location conditionChild2 {
set some additional nginx config params;
}
}
So in the above scenario I want it to be possible (based on the
conditionChild1 and conditionChild2 regex) for BOTH conditionChild1 and
2 to match). Can this be done? Or once conditionChild1 matches then
conditionChild2 will not be processed?
One reason I want this functionality is because certain nginx config
options are not available within an “if” block. For instance, as I wrote
about in a previous message here, proxy_intercept_errors does NOT work
in an “if” block, even though the error_page directive does.
For instance I have one main location block which matches lots of
different urls and page types, and I want to use an “if” condition to
check the url for certain page types and set proxy_intercept_errors and
error_page specific to each “if” condition block. But currently I cannot
do this. So I am wondering if the nested location block can help me by
doing something like using a location block within a location block
where the inner location block will then effectively give me the
conditional regex functionality like an “if” block but allow me to set
proxy_intercept_errors conditionally since it is now in a location
instead of “if” block.
*) Change: the “none” parameter in the “ssl_session_cache” directive;
now this is default parameter.
Thanks to Rob M…
So then am I correct to assume that ssl_session_timeout 5m has no impact
then unless ssl_session_cache is specifically declared with a value
other than none? In other words, with this change the default will be no
ssl session caching?
Also can you please provide some background on why this change was made?
Seems like at least a small amount of ssl session caching would be
appropriate, so now I am wondering if there is something risky/dangerous
about ssl caching (that warranted this change) that I should be aware
of. Thanks.