Message-ID: <3875E853.F08A6BDE@elmar.co.il>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:21:23 +0200
From: Eli Marmor <marmor@elmar.co.il>
Organization: El-Mar Software Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Config
References: <005201bf56fc$7d986570$0a1aa8c0@jetnet.co.uk>
 <20000107140133.B25006@pgtm0035.mch.sni.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Status: O

Martin Kraemer wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 09:41:10PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> > When we add a module via the config process, if that module has any
> > configuration directives/switches etc then it also supplies a mod_foo.conf
> > file that is appended to our basic conf file to make that servers
> > configuration file specific to the build.
> 
> The problem I see with this is the fact that often configurations depend
> on more than one module. And then, where would you put things which are
> configured only if, say, mod_mime AND mod_negotiation AND mod_rewrite
> are present?

Well, it's not the best way, but you always can have the general file
(httpd.conf), a file for mod_mime, a file for mod_negotiation, a file
for mod_rewrite, and A FIFTH FILE, call it as you want, and include it
from httpd.conf by nested "IfModule".

The real question is regarding to directives which are meaningful for
more than one module. We must decide if a directive in a file specific
to one module, is honored by another module, or if it affects only the
specific module. If we chose the former way, then module writers must
prefix their directives by the name of the module, to avoid conflicts
(of course, asuming that there are no conflicts between the names of
the modules, which can be avoided by using the modules registry).

I don't say that current names of directives should be changed; Only
new names, to avoid conflicts.

-- 
Eli Marmor