httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <>
Subject Re: Random Filter Syntax observations...
Date Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:59:16 GMT
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 05:43:53PM -0700, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Because from context to context you mean to change the server config.  What
> works in one Location doesn't work for another, what is good for one directory
> isn't good for another.
> You need to be able to replace those configs, if these are piled on, after 
> a sufficent number, the user won't be able to untangle where that filter
> came in to the picture.  I believe Add/Set will prove more generally useful
> than the new Insert/(Delete?) directive, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Well, I think filters should be inherited from a higher-level directory.  
Or, at the very least, allow a syntax that has that (such as 

When you say {Set|Add}OutputFilter, you clobber the filter chain.
When you say InsertOutputFilter, you tack on that filter to the already
assembled chain (probably to the end).

> I'm -1 on eliminating Set/AddOutputFilter syntax.  We can suppliment with Insert which

> has the properties you desire.  As for Remove, that's the converse of the mime Add 
> directives, so we need a synonym that reflects new Insert directives (Delete?).

Supplementing works.  I'm the converse of you - I don't think many
people will use Set/AddOutputFilter as you describe, but I'm willing
to be proven wrong.  (Delete works for me as the converse of Insert,
but we may get user confusion if we have two commands that remove a
filter from the chain - I think only one is really necessary...)

> /me lobs an e-built coffee cup

I don't drink coffee.  =-)  -- justin

View raw message