httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <...@en.muc.de>
Subject Re: module status
Date Sun, 04 Aug 1996 07:44:15 GMT
On 4 Aug 1996 03:07:07 +0200 in en.lists.apache-new-httpd you wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> [...]
> >    When I reference /u/rse/abc/index.scgi directly it works.
> >    When I reference /u/rse/abc/ and there is the index.scgi it works.
> >    When I reference /u/rse/abc/index.phtml directly it works.
> >    When I reference /u/rse/abc/ and there is the index.phtml it dumps core.

> This may be related to the SCRIPT_NAME problem that was reported a week or
> so ago. Here's something you might check: See what the value of
> path_info_start is at line 215 of util_script.c (in add_cgi_vars()). I
> have a feeling it might be negative. If so, it's a problem with the core
> code, don't worry about it, hopefully we'll fix it.

OK, I will check this today. I hope this brings me one step further...

> > 2. I've done a first shot to use the new regex code of the latest snapshots but
> >    the old regexp strings of my RewriteRule directives no longer matched!
> >    I've put this problem to the second level of my fixing process, because I
> >    think it is only a little bug somewhere. 

> Could be a slight different in the regex syntaxes. Did you use
> REG_EXTENDED? It's probably a lot closer to the V8 syntax than REG_BASIC.

I used REG_EXTENDED, yes. And in the manual pages there are now more REG_
flags which directly affect the type of regex strings. Ok, the only thing or
the "no begin of line" etc. flags. Hmmm.. After fixing the problem above I
will try to fix this one.

> >    BTW: With the current regex stuff of Apache it is not possible to
> >         compile in any module or stuff which uses a different regex library
> >         when this different regexp library conflicts with the prototypes of
> >         regex.h from the Apache distribtion. Becuase regex.h is included in
> >         conf.h and even commenting it out does not work, becuase it is needed
> >         for alloc.* etc. I think it would be better to have some sort of
> >         USE_INTERNAL_REGEX and sorround all regex stuff in Apache, i.e.
> >         if you don't want to use the stuff Apache should not even try to
> >         declare the stuff in alloc.h and utils.c etc.

> I disagree. We've included that nice regex code, people should be forced
> to use it :P

> At any rate, hopefully you can get mod_rewrite to work; I certainly don't
> want to have to include *two* regex libraries in Apache.

No, we don't need to include regex libaries. This would be bad! No, no, I
will give mod_rewrite as mouch touchs as it needs to work with the new
library. Be sure...

> [...]
> > 3. Using mod_alias _AND_ mod_rewrite does (because of 1.) no longer
> >    work, because the current API has no support for such situations, i.e.  a
> >    hook for URI-to-URI or filename-to-filename conversion. Currently you have
> >    to use mod_rewrite_compat.c if you really want to mix RewriteRule, Alias,
> >    ScriptAlias and Redirect directives. We discussed this recently and the
> >    only solution to this is to add two new hooks to the API: One for
> >    URI-to-URI-rewriting, the other for Filename-to-Filename rewriting.  I
> >    will add a special flag to RewriteRules which one can use to manually
> >    force the current filename to overrrite the r->uri. This is just a hack
> >    unless we have a better API, but this can be a workaround for those who
> >    really want to mix the directives.

> That sounds fine.

Ok, I will add a [U] flag to force the URI to be set to the value of the
current (rewritten) filename. When one wants to mix the directives it had to
put this flag e.g. at the last RewriteRule or even on the RewriteRule which
produces something which should postprocessed by a Alias directive or such.

But now is another question: This is a hack! Clean is only to use
mod_rewrite_compat.c instead of mod_alias.c and mod_userdir.c! We should try
hard to get mod_rewrite_compat.c work compatible to these old modules when we
want to officially include mod_rewrite into 1.2. 

> > Comments?

> Sounds good. If you want some help, or you want someone else to look over
> the code, feel free to post it here or make it available somewhere.

Yes, It would be nice if someone could at least start to deep-check
mod_rewrite_compat.c to be sure that it can replace mod_alias.c and
mod_userdir.c even if we make this replacement an option! But when someone
uses mod_rewrite_compat.c it really needs to be compatible in behaviour.  I
will post the current stuff when I got it work with the current snaphots.

Greetings,
                                        Ralf S. Engelschall    
                                        rse@engelschall.com
                                        http://www.engelschall.com/~rse

Mime
View raw message