Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 28042 invoked by uid 500); 14 Oct 2002 16:08:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 27992 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2002 16:08:30 -0000 Message-ID: <3DAACFFB.4070308@slive.ca> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:08:59 -0400 From: Joshua Slive User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally? References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021013165742.033d99b8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> <3DAA1FAF.3080605@slive.ca> <2147483647.1034539688@[10.0.1.11]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive > wrote: > >> One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed. >> That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and >> doesn't really help developers. > > > Could you please explain why breaking out the authorization (authz) > components in a similar fashion to authentication (authn) is a > gratuitous change? > > I believe mod_authz_host is a much better name for mod_access. It > indicates that this module is only dealing with authorization based on > the remote host components. mod_access can mean lots of things, but the > fact that it was solely restricted to hostnames wasn't obvious to me > from the original module name. -- justin Sure, mod_authz_host is a slightly better name. But it does not justify the confusion of renaming the module. I'm looking at benefit/cost here, and I see only a small benefit with a significant cost. The other auth changes also have a significant cost, but they have a greater benefit. Joshua.