Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:11:01 -0700 (MST)
From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: getwd
In-Reply-To: <9702180758.AA07719@ jrc.it>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970218100600.20313C-100000@alive.znep.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Dirk.vanGulik wrote:

> > Marc Slemko wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Seems like the only use of getwd() is to generate the full pathname
> > > > of the included file in mod_includes.c... Is this needed? Couldn't
> > > > we just replace that with "./"? Is this for security reasons or
> > > > some other interactions...?
> > > 
> > > I support getting rid of it.  
> > > 
> > 
> > Votes for simply using "./" ...
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> For live mount/umount reasons I prefer the thing to follow the chroot("/")
> kind of rules; and would not like to reply on it like that. If any; I would
> prever the server directory to be prefixed.
> 
> We quite often have little accident where a disc gets mounted/dis-mounted
> and things stop working cause there is some obscure program starting its
> path on that mnt point; even though the file is elsewhere.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow.  This path is only valid for the
duration of one SSI request so I don't see this being an issue.  It seems
silly to me to need getwd() to get a directory a few seconds after you set
it.  I suppose if you have lots of multihour long SSI requests, but...