You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org> on 2010/12/24 16:56:27 UTC

Relative vs Absolute Options (PR 33078)

Hi folks,

I'd like to apply the attached patch to trunk.
It's based on the one in PR#33078, disallowing the mixing
of relative and absolute options (for combinations which
really don't make any sense).

This "feature" has been proven to be very costly: in support
hours - which is why I'd like to get rid of it.

Opinions?

i

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/

Re: Relative vs Absolute Options (PR 33078)

Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> On 12/24/2010 12:25 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > 
> > On Dec 24, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I'd like to apply the attached patch to trunk.
> >> It's based on the one in PR#33078, disallowing the mixing
> >> of relative and absolute options (for combinations which
> >> really don't make any sense).

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1053375&view=rev

> >> This "feature" has been proven to be very costly: in support
> >> hours - which is why I'd like to get rid of it.
> >>
> >> Opinions?
> > 
> > +1, I think.
> > 
> > Remember that "All" does not include MultiViews, so it's feasible
> that you'd want to have
> > Options Multiviews followed by Options +All. Perhaps someone can
> remind me why All doesn't
> > include Multiviews?
> 
> Absurdly expensive way to do multiple variants.  type-maps are much
> more efficient.

i

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/

Re: Relative vs Absolute Options (PR 33078)

Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/24/2010 12:25 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> 
> On Dec 24, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'd like to apply the attached patch to trunk.
>> It's based on the one in PR#33078, disallowing the mixing
>> of relative and absolute options (for combinations which
>> really don't make any sense).
>>
>> This "feature" has been proven to be very costly: in support
>> hours - which is why I'd like to get rid of it.
>>
>> Opinions?
> 
> +1, I think.
> 
> Remember that "All" does not include MultiViews, so it's feasible that you'd want to have
> Options Multiviews followed by Options +All. Perhaps someone can remind me why All doesn't
> include Multiviews?

Absurdly expensive way to do multiple variants.  type-maps are much more efficient.

Re: Relative vs Absolute Options (PR 33078)

Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Dec 24, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Igor Galić wrote:

>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd like to apply the attached patch to trunk.
> It's based on the one in PR#33078, disallowing the mixing
> of relative and absolute options (for combinations which
> really don't make any sense).
>
> This "feature" has been proven to be very costly: in support
> hours - which is why I'd like to get rid of it.
>
> Opinions?

+1, I think.

Remember that "All" does not include MultiViews, so it's feasible that  
you'd want to have Options Multiviews followed by Options +All.  
Perhaps someone can remind me why All doesn't include Multiviews?

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com