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: config/1480: Protect optional directives in .conf-dist files
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
>From the fingers of Marc Slemko flowed the following:
>On 25 Nov 1997, Ken A L Coar wrote:
>> Non-core directives, or at least those in modules that are typically
>> not included in an httpd binary, should be protected in the .conf-dist
>> files by putting them in <IfModule> containers.  For example, the
>> proxy directives should appear inside a <IfModule mod_proxy.c>
>> block.
>Why?  All I can see that doing is confusing users.  I don't see many
>problems with people uncommenting things they don't want to, and having an
>error message pop up if they uncomment them without having the module in
>is a good thing.

    Because some people assume that if we include the directive in the
    .conf-dist files, they can uncomment them with impunity.  This is
    typically not the case with the proxy.

    The error message that "pops up" doesn't make it at all clear that
    you need to rebuild with the module that supports the directive.
    The exact same message comes up whether you use "ProxyRemote" with
    the module not in the server, or "PrxyRemote" with it in.  In short,
    you can't tell from the error whether you've misspelt something or
    are just missing the functionality.

    At least putting the probably-not-in directives within <IfModule>
    blocks will make it clear that they need the module.

    Put it another way: *how* is this going to confuse users?  I see two
    at least two PRs that came in as a result of simply uncommenting
    something in the .conf-dist file.

    #ken    P-|}

View raw message