httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <rbl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: mod_actions 1.32 patch never made it to 2.0
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:58:59 GMT
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:13:23 +0100, André Malo <nd@apache.org> wrote:
> * Ryan Bloom <rbloom@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I have a couple of pretty big issues with this response.
> >
> > 1)  You have a configuration in Apache 1.3 that doesn't work in Apache
> > 2.0, but the config directives don't have to be changed at all.  This
> > is something that we worked really hard not to do in 2.0.  There
> > should never be a config in 1.3 that just gives the wrong results in
> > 2.0 without any way for the user to understand why.
> 
> Ah? That's what one would call a bug. While breaking the behaviour in
> 1.3.9/1.3.10 nobody even thought about this issue. It's *still not
> documented that it was broken*. And a lot of users suffered of it, including
> me.

Suffered how?  How exactly did a change that made the code accept more
configs break your config?  Also, it isn't that nobody thought of this
when making the change to 1.3.  Looking through the mailing list
archives, I see Ben Laurie specifically had a problem with Location
and mod_actions that Manoj fixed.  I haven't found the whole thread
about the problem, just the RM notes about it.  So, we have a bug that
was fixed in 1.3 that was reintroduced in 2.0, and 2.0 is solving the
problem the completely opposite way.  Instead of defaulting to doing
what 1.3 does, you default to the opposite position.  That is what I
am saying is so wrong here.  Pick the same default as 1.3, and allow
the option to override that default.

> 
> > 2)  In choosing to default to the 404, you have broken anybody who
> > wants to share 1.3 and 2.0 config snippets.
> 
> [...]
> see above.
> Additionally 1.3 and 2.0 *are* different, so this is null argument at all.

I'm sorry, but no it is not.  I know something about this, and we
spent a lot of time and energy trying to ensure that a config that
worked in 1.3 worked the same way in 2.0.  We jumped through hoops to
ensure that a handler configured as it would be in 1.3 would work even
if the handler was moved to a filter.  There should not be any
examples of a config directive that has the exact same syntax in 1.3
and 2.0 and different behavior.  That is what we are talking about
here.  The directive has the _same_ syntax in the two trees, thus it
should act the same way.

> > 4)  This isn't documented anywhere at all.  If you are going to break
> > old configs, then please add some docs to the docs-2.0 tree.
> 
> Sure. It's not incorporated yet. It was voted recently and I'm going to
> commit it soon.

And I'm asking that you reconsider doing that so that 2.0 and 1.3 can
interoperate more cleanly.  You aren't going to change how 1.3 handles
this situation, and 2.1 hasn't been released, and the change hasn't
been back-ported to 2.0.  So, the 2.x tree should do what 1.3 does,
and your flag should allow you to override.

Ryan

-- 
Ryan Bloom
rbb@apache.org
rbb@redhat.com
rbloom@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message