Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 38933 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2009 21:54:14 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Sep 2009 21:54:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 50776 invoked by uid 500); 11 Sep 2009 21:54:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 50696 invoked by uid 500); 11 Sep 2009 21:54:12 -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 50687 invoked by uid 99); 11 Sep 2009 21:54:12 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:54:12 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [72.167.82.81] (HELO p3plsmtpa01-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (72.167.82.81) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:54:02 +0000 Received: (qmail 11608 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2009 21:53:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (76.252.112.72) by p3plsmtpa01-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.81) with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2009 21:53:40 -0000 Message-ID: <4AAAC6DA.3000406@rowe-clan.net> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:53:30 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org, Rich Bowen Subject: Re: svn commit: r795451 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS References: <20090718235317.3D2D32388872@eris.apache.org> <4A64D3CA.4050300@rowe-clan.net> <4A9DA9D9.3090203@rowe-clan.net> <4A9DAE76.5000402@webthing.com> In-Reply-To: <4A9DAE76.5000402@webthing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org *Rich*, Nick Kew wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> Nick... >> >> should we discuss an alternate name? Or should I simply revert the patch >> vetoed on trunk? > > I'm easy on the name. > > Let's ping DrBacchus - this was his feature request :-) > >> 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"? > > FWIW, I preferred your earlier suggestion of Fallback[Handler|Action]. your input please? It would be nice to fix rather than revert, but I'll personally do either on Monday, because we can't tag a 2.3 alpha with an veto still open.