httpd-dev mailing list archives

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

I understand the goal.
But what about indicating for each module the "hook phase" it is using 
(first/middle/last).

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)?

Regards,

Nick

On 2/5/2011 13:11, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:56:10 +0200
> Nick Gearls<nickgearls@gmail.com>  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
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.3/rewrite/tech.html#InternalAPI
> 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!
>

Mime
View raw message