httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: mod_actions 1.32 patch never made it to 2.0
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:01:37 GMT
* Ryan Bloom <rbloom@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Huh?! I *wanted* to get a 404 from the httpd. Did you really read my
posting?
There was introduced a bug, nothing more.
What I'm doing now *is* to allow to use the same config for 1.3.9 and 2.0
and 2.1.

> > > 2)  In choosing to default to the 404, you have broken anybody who
> > > wants to share 1.3 and 2.0 config snippets.

No, 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.

Well, you had no luck, it seems.

nd

Mime
View raw message