You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> on 2002/10/07 16:00:06 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/mod mod_authn_anon.html.en
jerenkrantz@apache.org wrote:
> Update the docs to fully reflect the aaa changes by linking in the new
> modules and removing the deleted ones; renaming mod_auth_anon->mod_authn_anon,
> and mod_access->mod_authz_host.
>
> All docs to the old modules are now deleted.
>
> Translations were kept with their old modules. (Can't read Japanese.)
It has been a tradition in the apache docs to keep "backward
compatibility" within major versions. This means that anyone using any
version of Apache 2.0 should be able to use the docs from the website.
That is broken by this reorg.
One option would be to add back docs for the old modules (mod_auth,
mod_auth_dbm, etc) with just skeleton contents saying where to look for
the docs. Another option would be to just abandon the backward
compatibility.
Another thing that is needed here is a brief writeup of the "what has
changed" variety. This could be added to, or at least linked from, the
"upgrading_to_2_0 doc. Justin, is there any way you could supply that?
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/mod mod_authn_anon.html.en
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* André Malo wrote:
> * Joshua Slive wrote:
>
>> An obvious solution would be to mark the old modules as
>> <status>obsolete</status> and have the index generation code ignore
>> them.
>
> I'm +1 for something like this since they *are* (a now obsolete) part
> of the 2.0 tree. So we also avoid breaking existing links to the
> resources.
hmm. mod_auth_digest.xml is the name of the old file and of the new one.
(which misses a description of AuthDigestProvider, however)
That would be a problem, I guess.
nd
--
$_=q?tvc!uif)%*|#Bopuifs!A`#~tvc!Xibu)%*|qsjou#Kvtu!A`#~tvc!KBQI!)*|~
tvc!ifmm)%*|#Qfsm!A`#~tvc!jt)%*|(Ibdlfs(~ # What the hell is JAPH? ;
@_=split/\s\s+#/;$_=(join''=>map{chr(ord( # André Malo ;
$_)-1)}split//=>$_[0]).$_[1];s s.*s$_see; # http://www.perlig.de/ ;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/mod mod_authn_anon.html.en
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Joshua Slive wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> Hmm. Then, how do you handle mappings of the directives? If we
>> keep the old docs, then we have duplicate directives. I'd be
>> especially concerned in the directives*.html files.
>
> An obvious solution would be to mark the old modules as
> <status>obsolete</status> and have the index generation code ignore
> them.
I'm +1 for something like this since they *are* (a now obsolete) part of
the 2.0 tree. So we also avoid breaking existing links to the resources.
In 2.1+ trees we can easily drop them.
nd
--
Gefunden auf einer "Webdesigner"-Seite:
> Programmierung in HTML, XML, WML, CGI, FLASH <
# André Malo # http://www.perlig.de/ #
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/mod mod_authn_anon.html.en
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Hmm. Then, how do you handle mappings of the directives? If we
> keep the old docs, then we have duplicate directives. I'd be
> especially concerned in the directives*.html files.
An obvious solution would be to mark the old modules as
<status>obsolete</status> and have the index generation code ignore them.
>
> I would prefer we do not handle backwards compatibility.
>
> (Much in the same way, we chose to abandon it in the code.)
I don't have strong opinions about it.
> AFAIK, for the most part, user configurations need not change. The
> only required change is in the handling of the *Authoritative
> directives. If the user relies on that, a simple reading of the
> documentation should suffice to resolve that.
OK. But at least a mention of the module renaming needs to be added to
the upgrading docs. If you don't get around to it, I'm sure someone
else will eventually.
>
> I could be wrong in that the change requires more user intervention,
> but my current understanding is that it doesn't. It really needs
> feedback and review by others - I committed what I could because
> OtherBill was rambling about vetoing the code because I didn't update
> the docs. -- justin
No problem here. Just working on getting loose ends tied up.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual/mod mod_authn_anon.html.en
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:00:06AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> It has been a tradition in the apache docs to keep "backward
> compatibility" within major versions. This means that anyone using any
> version of Apache 2.0 should be able to use the docs from the website.
> That is broken by this reorg.
Hmm. Then, how do you handle mappings of the directives? If we
keep the old docs, then we have duplicate directives. I'd be
especially concerned in the directives*.html files.
> One option would be to add back docs for the old modules (mod_auth,
> mod_auth_dbm, etc) with just skeleton contents saying where to look for
> the docs. Another option would be to just abandon the backward
> compatibility.
I would prefer we do not handle backwards compatibility.
(Much in the same way, we chose to abandon it in the code.)
> Another thing that is needed here is a brief writeup of the "what has
> changed" variety. This could be added to, or at least linked from, the
> "upgrading_to_2_0 doc. Justin, is there any way you could supply that?
AFAIK, for the most part, user configurations need not change. The
only required change is in the handling of the *Authoritative
directives. If the user relies on that, a simple reading of the
documentation should suffice to resolve that.
I could be wrong in that the change requires more user intervention,
but my current understanding is that it doesn't. It really needs
feedback and review by others - I committed what I could because
OtherBill was rambling about vetoing the code because I didn't update
the docs. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org