error when handler not found?

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

Would it make sense to log an error when a handler for something that has
a specific handler associated with it isn't found?

Re: error when handler not found?

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> You mean log in default_handler when r->handler != NULL?  That makes
> sense.

Yes, that is the basic idea.  I always thought it dumb when Apache didn't
whine when I tried to use mod_status without it compiled but it just gave
me a 404.  This gets even more important on Win32 with LoadModule.

However I'm still trying to figure out if there are any screwed up
situations in our screwed up types handling that could result in a handler
being set for something that gets sent via default_handler anyway.  

Index: http_core.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /export/home/cvs//apache-1.3/src/main/http_core.c,v
retrieving revision 1.165
diff -u -r1.165 http_core.c
--- http_core.c	1998/03/02 06:51:07	1.165
+++ http_core.c	1998/03/13 01:48:58
@@ -2009,6 +2009,12 @@
     caddr_t mm;
 #endif
 
+    if (r->handler) {
+	aplog_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_NOERRNO|APLOG_WARNING,
+	    r->server, "handler \"%s\" not found, using default "
+	    "handler for: %s", r->handler, r->filename);
+    }
+
     /* This handler has no use for a request body (yet), but we still
      * need to read and discard it if the client sent one.
      */


> 
> Dean
> 
> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> > Would it make sense to log an error when a handler for something that has
> > a specific handler associated with it isn't found?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

Re: error when handler not found?

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

You mean log in default_handler when r->handler != NULL?  That makes
sense.

Dean

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:

> Would it make sense to log an error when a handler for something that has
> a specific handler associated with it isn't found?
> 
> 
>