Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:25:25 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>, dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: authentication rewrite
Message-ID: <20020827172525.D7336@lyra.org>
References: <20020827165109.GB21273@apache.org>
 <3D52BACF00010FB2@mta05.san.yahoo.com> <20020827222710.GD21273@apache.org>
 <20020827170311.B7336@lyra.org> <20020828000219.GH21273@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <20020828000219.GH21273@apache.org>;
 from jerenkrantz@apache.org on Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:02:19PM -0700

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:02:19PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:03:11PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Put it in there, then :-)
> > 
> > I haven't really seen any objects so far. And hey... this *is* version
> > control. It can always be backed out :-)
> 
> I don't want to add it in and then have to back it out because people
> didn't realize that it is going to hose existing configs.  
> 
> If we're cool with that, then fine.  -- justin

Oh yah... the config thing. There isn't a way to keep existing configs? To
simply deprecate older configurations?

Is the problem that older configs need to add a new directive? And if so,
then could we add it automagically? Yes, this would hard-code a dependency
between two modules, but that would be better than a broken config. And we
can take out the auto-config at some future point.

It would seem that changes to the directives would be easy, and we could
also deprecate older directives. In all cases, we'd change our .conf files
and the doc, issue warnings for old usage, and then just "wait a while"
before removing old support.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/