httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Gearls <>
Subject Re: mod_proxy & headers
Date Mon, 02 May 2011 15:53:37 GMT

I understand the goal.
But what about indicating for each module the "hook phase" it is using 

Probably only one entry for most modules.
One entry fort some directives for complex ones.

Would this be so complex to read? I agree it would probably be ignored 
by most readers, although the principle would be rather easy to understand.

For the moment, I have the impression that simplicity takes precedence 
over exhaustiveness, no? Where else (apart from the code) could I find 
this information?
If somebody has another idea how to compile it (like a separate table 
containing every module "hook phase"), that's also a solution. Would it 
be realistic to have a table with all modules "hook phase" (with several 
entries for some of them)?



On 2/5/2011 13:11, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:56:10 +0200
> Nick Gearls<>  wrote:
>> However, what about the proposition to indicate for every module (or
>> directive when needed) the phase it runs, to be able to determine
>> interactions? I guess this shouldn't be difficult when you know the
>> module. This could maybe even be generated automatically from the code?
> No.
> In the first place, for many directives there's no simple answer.
> Secondly, the last thing our documentation needs is more confusing
> complexity.  "Too complex" is already the most common objection to
> apache from users of corporate servers.
> To think it through, take a look at
> which does what you ask.  If all our documentation starts to
> look like that, how many users will ever understand TFM?
> Of course, if you want to prove me wrong, start writing!

View raw message