Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <4888D1A6.6060805@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:01:58 +0200
From: Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080702 SeaMonkey/1.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: mod_cgid doesn't pass null arguments on command line
References: <1404e5910807240501u27daaae0ya57e896e67523441@mail.gmail.com>
 <cc67648e0807240636m237e6da5w31c38e33c3659e53@mail.gmail.com>
 <99EA83DCDE961346AFA9B5EC33FEC08BEDC0E5@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
 <4888B742.6060706@force-elite.com>
In-Reply-To: <4888B742.6060706@force-elite.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 07/24/2008 07:09 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> Pl�m, R�diger, VF-Group wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Jeff Trawick
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2008 15:36
>>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: mod_cgid doesn't pass null arguments on command line
>>>

>>>
>>> mod_cgi works fine though (tiny caveat: I tried this with cgi vs. 
>>> cgid on a 2061 tree I had handy).  The discrepancy between arg 
>>> handling in cgi/cgid is the major concern as far as user impact.
>>
>> I don't get why there is a difference between mod_cgi and mod_cgid
>> how they handle NULL arguments. Is there any specific reason why mod_cgid
>> skips them?
>> Whatever is the correct thing (skipping or not): Lets make mod_cgi / 
>> mod_cgid
>> behave in the same way.
> 
> +1, they should have identical behaviors, and I would prefer to fix that 
> in 2.2x, not just add another env var.

+1, but who is behaving correctly currently mod_cgi or mod_cgid?

Regards

R�diger