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 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:10:17 GMT

should we discuss an alternate name?  Or should I simply revert the patch
vetoed on trunk?

I'm neutral on the outcome, since I don't see what this directive offers
which an ErrorDocument would not, but I'm also ok with it persisting with
an appropriate directive name.  Ignoring a veto entirely isn't cool, erasing
it is even less appropriate, and it's stood for an awfully long time now.

Can we compromise on the name NotFoundHandler, MissingFileHandler,
NotFoundAction,  MissingFileAction, or any of a dozen other possible
variations that don't contain the misleading word "Default"?

> "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.
> Bill

View raw message