httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@dsndata.com>
Subject Re: IncludesYesCGInoCMD
Date Fri, 14 Apr 1995 16:42:26 GMT

>  
> > I have directories in which only a small subset of the well established
> > html files need includes. XBitHack lets me do that at the file level
> > granularity that I need.
> > 
> > If XBITHACK were to be *replaced* by a directory config option, then
> > I'd be back to square one.
> > I've no objection to a per-directory based includes toggle switch, if it
> > didn't affect the existing XBITHACK system.
> 
> How about this as a permanent solution to the problem, and a way to
> get rid of XBITHACK...
> 
> 
> The problem is that while I'd like to be able to define files as
> .shtml so that only they get parsed for includes, I already have
> lots of popular URLs ending in .html
> 
> What if I rename by XBITHACK .html files to .shtml, and have Apache
> look for .shtml when it fails to find .html
> 
> Includes are "expensive" anyway, so an extra stat for .shtml wouldn't
> amount to much.
> 
> XBITHACK could then be confined to the bit bucket where it belongs.

This would definitely get my vote as it makes it much easier to
turn off Includes in user directories as I understand it.



Mime
View raw message