Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 49929 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 21:51:43 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 21:51:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 81380 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 21:51:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 81319 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 21:51:39 -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: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 81307 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 21:51:39 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:51:39 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:51:38 -0800 Received: (qmail 49731 invoked by uid 2161); 1 Apr 2006 21:51:18 -0000 Received: from [192.168.2.4] (euler.heimnetz.de [192.168.2.4]) by cerberus.heimnetz.de (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.0 (i386)) with ESMTP id 4C50D1721C for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 23:51:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <442EF5CC.5050808@apache.org> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:51:08 +0200 From: Ruediger Pluem User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920 X-Accept-Language: de, en, de-de, en-gb, cy, zu, xh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: PR 31759 - default handler returns output filter apr_status_t value References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 03/31/2006 06:53 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > Some concerns about the else path: > > a) is 500 proper? should it just return OK instead? I think 500 is good. > > b) what about logging that path to ensure that the administrator has > some help diagnosing the problem, since we can't carry the > apr_status_t any further than here? > > There are concerns of too much logging (filter has already logged > something) or too little logging (filter didn't log anything). The > access log won't have any strong hints that something bad happened > since r->status didn't get changed and c->aborted didn't get set. What about the debug level for this log message? Would this be a compromise between too much logging and no logging? Regards R�diger