httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r795451 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Date Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:30:02 GMT wrote:
> Author: niq
> Date: Sat Jul 18 23:53:16 2009
> New Revision: 795451
> URL:
> Log:
> Amend PR47184 backport proposal: s/DefaultHandler/DefaultMapping/
> as per discussion on the list and wrowe subsequent veto.
> - * mod_dir: add DefaultHandler directive
> + * mod_dir: add DefaultMapping directive
> -   -1: wrowe; why 'DefaultHandler' is a bad choice for directive name posted to list

No; that veto stands.

"Hander" was not the bad choice.

"Default" is the bad choice.
See 5 b, it's meaning is crystal clear...

  5 b: a selection automatically used by a computer program in the
       absence of a choice made by the user

In the httpd context, "Default" refers to a setting or action which is
applied in the absence of any configuration setting.  That is not what
your patch does.

For this to be a "Default" behavior, all content, existing or not found,
must be processed by this handler.  We have such a directive in mod_alias,
which is the Action directive.

FallbackHandler, FallbackAction, there are a host of directive names you
could choose that do *not imply* that the behavior affects all requests
which aren't otherwise configured.

This directive also belongs in mod_actions.

Please restore my veto, thanks.


View raw message