httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From C...@PROCESS.COM (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject Re: Options & SSIs
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
>From the fingers of Marc Slemko flowed the following:
>On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>     I still don't like "IncludesNoExec" as an option keyword (or
>>     functionality, for that matter); it's like saying, "This vehicle has
>>     the following options: wheels, brakes, no airbag, windows, ..."
>No.  It says it has everything you would expect except wheels.  It is
>silly to have to list a vehicle as having brakes, windows, doors, steering
>wheel, etc. just to say it has no wheels.

    I think you missed the point.  IncludesNoExec isn't an option, it's
    an UNoption.  Options are things that are available, not things that
    aren't.  Or maybe *I'm* missing the point.

>>     I *do* use include virtual instead of exec cgi.  But don't tell me,
>>     tell the hundreds of thousands of Apache users out there.  I trust
>>     CGIs [marginally] more than I do arbitrary shell scripts, and it
>>     bothers me that the config language treats them as requiring more
>>     caution.  AND as a subset of shell-command.
>No, the config language treats exec anything as requiring more caution.
>include virtual isn't execing anything, it isn't reading anything from
>disk, it isn't accessing a database for anything: it is just making a
>request somehow.  How doesn't matter.

    We're definitely miscommunicating here.  "Options Includes" turns on
    "exec cmd", but not "exec cgi".  You need to take another step to
    turn on the latter, and "Options IncludesNoExec" turns them *both*

>>     If exec cgi is legacy, then let's either take the plunge and
>>     document it as deprecated and possibly to be removed in the future,
>>     or else support it correctly.
>It is documented as not being the best way:
>                The include virtual element should be used in preference
>                to exec cgi.                                           

    Not at all the same thing as saying it's deprecated/going away.

>> >Where do you get the idea that ExecCGI allows "exec cgi"?
>>     From the documentation, testing, and experimentation.
>I'm afraid I don't follow.  If you want to use exec cgi, you need ExecCGI
>or a ScriptAlias.  However, just having ExecCGI enabled doesn't allow you
>to do an exec cgi.

    Erm, 'fraid it does - at least for me.  Put it this way: when I have
    an "exec cgi" that refers to a CGI script in my own directory, I get
    a null substitution string UNLESS I have "Options Includes ExecCGI".
    With that, however, the CGI works and is included properly.

    #ken    P-)}

View raw message