Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E735C7040 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 76721 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2011 20:23:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 76660 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2011 20:23:17 -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 76652 invoked by uid 99); 18 Oct 2011 20:23:17 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:23:17 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [188.40.99.202] (HELO eru.sfritsch.de) (188.40.99.202) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:23:10 +0000 Received: from stf (helo=localhost) by eru.sfritsch.de with local-esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RGGBV-0003Fq-TS for dev@httpd.apache.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:22:49 +0200 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:22:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Fritsch To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: mod_authn_socache bug? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="683461219-1252918675-1318969369=:12029" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --683461219-1252918675-1318969369=:12029 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Igor Gali=C4=87 wrote: >> On 10 Oct 2011, at 10:41, Nick Kew wrote: >> >>> Yep. Maybe calling it Location would be more consistent with >>> our terminology? >> >> but would also be an inappropriate change if it hit existing users >> who rely on the current "directory" semantics. So that becomes >> (just) a note for the docs. > > mod_authn_socache has *current* users? > Isn't it still beta? Nick, did you mean the "directory" config name should not be=20 changed? Or the behaviour? I hope the former, because the current=20 behaviour is definitely a bug. It could easily lead to misconfigurations=20 that may cause security issues. --683461219-1252918675-1318969369=:12029--