httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: Options & SSIs
Date Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:24:58 GMT
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> >From the fingers of Marc Slemko flowed the following:
> >
> >I don't see any need for special code to allow enabling exec cgi without
> >exec cmd.  exec cgi is legacy.  Use include virtual instead.  It is
> >supposed to work in both Includes and IncludesNoExec, however right now it
> >only works for ScriptAliased directories.  I think that should be fixed
> >(there is a PR on it somewhere), but once it is I see no reason for adding
> >code to play with exec cgi. 
>     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 *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.

>     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.                                           

> >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.

View raw message