httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: mod_cern_meta.c - MetaFiles <on|off>
Date Tue, 25 Jun 1996 02:04:18 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Rob Hartill wrote:
> >   Do we want to increase the storage size for the Options fields before
> >   official 1.1? Should be a harmless fix that might be appreciated by
> >   someone developing an extension???
> > 
> > Unfortunately, it would probably be real awkward to use unless there's a 
> > graceful way for a particular extension to request a bit.  (Without that,
> > conflicts with different extensions using the same bit for different
> > purposes become pretty much inevitable).
> We could mark the bits as "not for use without it being registered with
> the developers".. that way we can allocate the next free bit as and when
> people have a genuine use for them.

Instead of expanding bitspace, is there a way we can make "Options" sort
of a meta-config-directive directive?  In other words, "Options Indexes"
would be fundamentally the same as trigerring an "Indexes" config
directive, or something like that?  As far as I can tell the only reason
Options is around is because that's what NCSA thought made sense instead
of making each option its own directive, with things like "Options All"
triggering them all on.  We can get out of that rathole, can't we?  Or
does an Options "argument" provide something that a regular old
per-directory config directive can't?



View raw message