httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: index.html not served w/mod_autoindex active
Date Sun, 07 Jan 2001 11:54:50 GMT
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> It bothers me that either in the middle of the 2.0 beta series, or during
> the 2.0 series itself, we are all of a sudden going to change how handlers
> are registered.  At least, that's the impression I get from the later
> messages.  Basically, it sounds to me like we are going to move the check
> into the handler, just to move it back out later once we decide to make
> the optimization.

You are presupposing that we will decide to make the optimisation. It
isn't clear to me that we would.

>  I would much rather get the API correct, even if we
> don't implement all of it immediately.  That way, we don't break every
> single handler when we get around to implementing the optimzation.  All I
> am asking, is that we get the API to the point that we can implement the
> optimization without changing the API again.  For right now, I really
> don't care that the core actually does everything, but I do care that we
> get the API correct for the advancement in the future.

Again, you are assuming that this is an enhancement we actually want.
I'm inclined to argue that all it gets us is one less function call in a
small number of cases at the cost of considerable obfuscation - it isn't
clear to me that this enhancement would be even measurable. And the
point of doing this is to remain allegedly compatible with the existing
system, though, of course, registering hook functions can only be
compatible in the most eccentric sense of the word.

> Other people suggested that being able to specify the order in the config
> file, because it makes debugging modules easier, but that was it.  I
> really don't care that much about the hinting mechanism for the config
> file.

Actually, the idea was to permit people to define order of hooking _in
general_, which could clearly be useful.

> I care that modules can specify the the "char *" when they register the
> handler, even if the core doesn't DO anything with it immediately.  If we
> don't have that option, then we will always have to call every handler.

If the core does nothing with it, then it _won't work_. And we always
have to call every other hook, even though they usually decline, but
that's never worried you before... and there's _far_ more of them.

> Do not consider this a veto in any way shape or form, this is an opinion,
> that we shouldn't have to call every handler.  Please implement whatever
> solution you like best.

Since no-one else has expressed an opinion, I shall. :-)

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

Mime
View raw message