httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: Considering the Default Handler and Subrequests
Date Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:31:53 GMT
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:22 PM


> On Thursday 13 December 2001 11:05 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Couple of bits.  If we declare handler_fn identically to a hook_handler
> > callback, then we can maintain the semantics.  A handler could raise it's
> > hand, but later DECLINE.  If it DECLINEs, or handler_fn is NULL, then we
> > proceed with the usual walk.
> 
> Why don't we go back to the original model, where a handler function is 
> associated with a handler-name, and the core just calls the correct one?

And reintroduce more strcasecmps and fnmatches :-?  Let's drop handler and
leave nothing but handler_fn if you like.  Very deterministic.  It's bold,
it's brash, it's hip :)

Seriously, when on earth was it strictly associated with a modules name?
both mod_mmap_static and core registered for "*/*", and core got it if mmap
didn't have it (DECLINED.)  It's always been a hook.

Bill



Mime
View raw message