Error in the isqlplus.conf file?

Question

Is there anyone else out there that gets this message? Each time I try to run my HTTP server to access iSQL*Plus, I get:
"Syntax error on line 92 of c:/oracle/ora92/sqlplus/admin/isqlplus.conf: FastCgiServer: redefinition of a previously defined FastCGI server "c:/oracle/ora92/bin/isqlplus"
Does anyone know how I can adjust this config file, or otherwise fix this problem?
Other than that, the Enterprise edition is up and running, including the SQL Plus app.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Eric

Answer 1

Hi Alison,
Thanks for the response! Unfortunately, I tried both of these, and neither seems to apply:
http://otn.oracle.com/support/tech/sql_plus/htdocs/runtime.html#isql_duplicate_entriesAt first, I thought this would be the problem, since I installed twice, but there was only one oracle_apache.conf file in the directory...
http://otn.oracle.com/support/tech/sql_plus/htdocs/runtime.html#isql_mutex_errorThis one actually talks about a different config file. I'm getting errors on my isqlplus.conf file. It's saying that there's an error b/c of "FastCGIServer: Redefinition of a previously defined Fast CGI Server" Here's what the config file looks like on that (in relevant part):
# Maps all virtual paths beginning with "/isqlplus*" to the iSQL*Plus
# FastCGI application
<IfModule mod_alias.c>
ScriptAliasMatch ^/isqlplus(.*) C:\oracle\ora92\bin\isqlplus
ScriptAliasMatch ^/isqlplusdba(.*) C:\oracle\ora92\bin\isqlplus
<Directory "C:\oracle\ora92\bin">
AllowOverride None
Options FollowSymLinks
Order deny,allow
Allow from all
</Directory>
</IfModule>
The other reference to the FastCGI server is here: <<#
# Setup the iSQL*Plus FastCGI application.
<IfModule mod_fastcgi.c>
FastCgiServer C:\oracle\ora92\bin\isqlplus -port 8228 -initial-env iSQLPlusNumberOfThreads=20 -initial-env iSQLPlusTimeOutInterval=30 -initial-env iSQLPlusLogLevel=off -initial-env iSQLPlusAllowUserEntMap=none -idle-timeout 3600
</IfModule>
Not sure about where else this FastCGI Server might be called, but it looks like one of the definitions is typographically different from the other. Could this be the issue?
Eric