httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: PATH_INFO in A2?
Date Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:09:13 GMT
At 03:56 PM 7/11/2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> >
> > But not by default.  That would be the exception, not the rule.
> > The idea is to avoid namespace recursion, and unlike CGIs, most
> > folks don't look at PATH_INFO in their SSIs.
>
>This smacks of a 'father knows best' attitude -- which historically
>infuriates me.  If it's dynamic, it's dynamic, so give it access
>to all its data.  *DON'T* force users (and people they ask for help)
>into a guessing game about when to turn the option on.

And don't go spilling entire web trees from every static file resource,
resulting in infinite recursion of a resource identifier ;-)

This was a compromise.  Short of pre-parsing the SSI for included
CGI files or PATH_INFO references, we can't predict.  Better docs
about this?   YES!  I would agree 100% this isn't intuitive enough.

Sorry if I feel somewhat strongly here.  Just got blasted with a dozen
hits last night for robots.txt by a.v., and I have only one dns entry
registered to that box.  Sure, you -can- include anything in an SSI,
but should the majority default to recursion or no recursion?

To default in favor of a non-infinitely-recursing resource is a good thing,
IMHO.  Do others care to shed new light in this year old debate?

Bill



Mime
View raw message