From dev-return-40321-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org Tue Dec 09 17:09:55 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 68488 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2003 17:09:55 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Dec 2003 17:09:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 75712 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2003 17:09:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75669 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2003 17:09:42 -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 75656 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2003 17:09:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO RCSV650) (208.176.192.146) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Dec 2003 17:09:42 -0000 Received: from RCSV650.apache.org ([208.176.192.146]) by RCSV650 with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.2600.1106); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:11:36 -0600 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031209105803.027e2eb8@pop3.rowe-clan.net> X-Sender: admin%rowe-clan.net@pop3.rowe-clan.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:04:09 -0600 To: dev@httpd.apache.org From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." Subject: Re: [PATCH] catching malformed container directives In-Reply-To: <3FD5EBF1.9090005@modperlcookbook.org> References: <3FD4A376.1050408@modperlcookbook.org> <3FD4A00E.5060607@modperlcookbook.org> <20031208171119.000021e1.nd@perlig.de> <3FD4A376.1050408@modperlcookbook.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2003 17:11:36.0709 (UTC) FILETIME=[80C20350:01C3BE77] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 09:36 AM 12/9/2003, Geoffrey Young wrote: >>=20 >> Andr=E9 Malo wrote: >>> >>>I'd like to keep possible. Simply because it's a very= efficient >>>way to comment a whole part out (reliably, since one cannot specify an >>>empty -D argument). And it's in use out there. > >ok, here is a new patch that excludes . Now you have me thinking. For Apache 2.1 (perhaps 2.0) I'd like to see that particular nonsense go away. I sympathize with Andr=E9's observation that= it's useful, but what he wants to do can be accomplished with DangerousDirective which serves the same purpose, but it much more legible. You point out that containers that expect args (e.g. not blocks) can= =20 be very difficult to debug in any sort of dynamic (mod_macro) sort of config environment. But also consider that many conf rewriting tools could= probably=20 crack under the strain of parsing such containers, if they specify no argument. On the balance, for 2.1 forward we should disallow . It's a coin toss to me if we continue to accept them in 2.0 - so I'd argue the principle of least surprise. Disallow in 2.1, but continue to allow in 2.0 . >also included is a patch (that applies on top of the other one) that fixes >broken containers. currently > > >does not throw an error (note the missing final '>'). That would be goodness! Bill=20