From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk>
Message-Id: <199605211344.OAA05368@cadair.elsevier.co.uk>
Subject: Re: WWW Form Bug Report: "the check auth function for a module is
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 14:44:17 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <199605211329.IAA17309@sierra.zyzzyva.com> from "Randy Terbush"
 at May 21, 96 08:29:41 am
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1329      
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

In reply to Randy Terbush who said
> 
> Since there are several other authentication modules that are
> not in the standard distribution, I wonder if not including
> any is an option?  This would not be a reflection on either
> Vivek or Dirk, but a political move to _not_ extend MFP
> (Most Favored Programmer) to anyone and level this playing
> field.

Not a good idea. You'll confuse the hell out of end-users, as well as
ourselves by having more than one version of a module with the same name.

We should have one version of the module in the distribution. Dirk's module
is already part of the system and there's no reason to change that unless
he feels that Vivek's provides a better base from which the functionality
of the two can be merged. Otherwise, Vivek should provide the diffs
against what we currently have to add the bits he wants.

Removing a module because someone else has come up with their own version
is a bit silly, if we start down that road we'll have no "core" modules and
there'll be myriads of modules with the same name, written by different
people to behave in slightly incompatible ways.

-- 
  Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd.  (Netcraft Ltd. contractor)
  Elsevier Science TIS online journal project.
  Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155