DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17239>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17239
mention the logical relation of multiple "Require" statements
------- Additional Comments From hauser@acm.org 2003-02-20 13:44 -------
Thanks for the heads-up on 2.1.
But in general, I would guess that equivalent functions will be available also
in 2.1?
If so, IMHO, the impact of such statements is a little bit under-documented.
While relatively scant documentation is o.k. for other features, I think that
security/access control/auth needs a little bit more care.
Just saying the result of cumulating certain directives is "undefined" or "ad
hoc" depending on particular implementations scares me when it is about security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org
|