Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 76.96.62.56 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Subject: Re: Removing Limit and LimitExcept
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CC15FC1.4010400@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:36:20 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <D3E3411A-018D-48AA-977C-9611EF0924C3@jaguNET.com>
References: <20101016095921.AC89123888FD@eris.apache.org>
 <201010192146.28217.sf@sfritsch.de>
 <B8FF05C4-6514-4A7E-8255-1EDF0C5EBD49@gbiv.com>
 <201010192232.48996.sf@sfritsch.de>
 <99EA83DCDE961346AFA9B5EC33FEC08B04EBAD41@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
 <1430849B-FE4C-46F1-828D-D52DD102A68F@jaguNET.com>
 <4CC08379.5080303@rowe-clan.net>
 <11A69348-C01F-4E9B-A79B-FE3644D63AAD@gbiv.com>
 <4CC15FC1.4010400@rowe-clan.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org


On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 10/21/2010 8:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 
>> So I am currently -1 on the whole idea.  I see no need to deprecate
>> Limit and LimitExcept.  I see considerable harm in removing them
>> entirely.  I see no harm in introducing new directives that will do
>> similar functionality in a better way, documenting those directives
>> as the preferred alternative, and modifying our configs accordingly.
> 
> I expected nothing less from you, Lars, Jim and others who would have
> approved this broken feature in the first place.
> 

You mean from people who not only develop but also run it
and have comprehension regarding the impact of such extensive
config changes for a 2.2->2.4 upgrade, right? Thanks.

I think, as Roy says, allowing for Limit/LimitExcept, noting
that it is deprecated, and creating a new set of directives
that allow people to use the "new method", is a much friendlier
approach for our users.