Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-64659-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 94031 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2009 11:48:19 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jun 2009 11:48:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 37773 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2009 11:48:31 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 37707 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2009 11:48:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@httpd.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 37698 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2009 11:48:30 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:48:30 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=10.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of apache-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
Received: from [80.91.229.2] (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:48:21 +0000
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MCBQN-0002b8-TJ
	for dev@httpd.apache.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:47:59 +0000
Received: from bi01p1.nc.us.ibm.com ([129.33.49.251])
        by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <dev@httpd.apache.org>; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:47:59 +0000
Received: from poirier by bi01p1.nc.us.ibm.com with local (Gmexim 0.1
 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <dev@httpd.apache.org>; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:47:59 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: Dan Poirier <poirier@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Some ramblings on httpd config
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 07:47:46 -0400
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <yuaab4omd99.fsf@poir9.raleigh.ibm.com>
References: <C64C0A23.C04FA%Brian.Akins@turner.com>
	<1244052546.9357.10.camel@vostro.crrrwg.de>
	<D92EF856-9A0F-4D18-8211-E5C54CB6F658@rcbowen.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: bi01p1.nc.us.ibm.com
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bcmgkl6WzmWNHEvPhqlENMl2vic=
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> writes:

> The <If> directive, along with better documentation, would solve 50% of what
> people use mod_rewrite for. A less painful way to configure dynamic virtual
> hosts would solve another 15%. And a healthy dose of education about all the
> gross misconceptions called "SEO" would solve the rest.
>
> Yes, we need some kind of macro thingy in the configuration. And while I think
> that most of us reading this email thread can handle that thingy being Lua, I
> honestly don't believe that the folks over on the users@ list can, unless it's
> something that can be embedded into existing configurations, rather than being
> the entirety of the configuration.

If we can fix the biggest problems with the current configuration
scheme, I think that's a powerful argument that we don't need to throw
it out and invent a whole new one.  As others have said, there's a huge
amount of knowledge out there based on the current configuration scheme,
and throwing all that out would be a shame.

-- 
Dan Poirier <poirier@pobox.com>