Re: mod_rewrite: different behaviour on sub-requests - Why?

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

>>> (see bug http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21814 ).
>>>
>>> I suggest to disarm this section if not removing it from mod_rewrite.c...
>>
>> This was added immediately after the inclusion of mod_rewrite into
>> the httpd code (some years ago). I believe, the only one who can say,
>> _why_ this was added, is Ralf :). However, I'll take a look into it.
>> This was probably added in order to avoid mod_rewrite-loops. Perhaps
>> it isn't necessary any longer.
> 
> No, sorry, I cannot remember myself. But you can be right, it looks like
> it was to prevent loops. The only other possible reason I can think of
> is that it was to perhaps speed up processing. But, as I said, I no
> longer can remember the real reason.

Hmm. After further thinking about it... I'm in favour of removing the check in
2.1. But I wouldn't backport it, since it *may* lead to a different behaviour
of existing rules.

Any Opinions?

nd

Re: mod_rewrite: different behaviour on sub-requests - Why?

[Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, André Malo wrote:

> The problem is, for example, that you cannot <!--#include
> virtual="rewritten-url" -->, since the subrequest won't be rewritten.
> (Sure, this affects .htaccess rules only, but a lot of people don't have the
> choice ...).

Ah.  Well, okay, +1 for 2.1 then.

Re: mod_rewrite: different behaviour on sub-requests - Why?

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Cliff Woolley wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, André Malo wrote:
> 
>> Hmm. After further thinking about it... I'm in favour of removing the
>> check in 2.1. But I wouldn't backport it, since it *may* lead to a
>> different behaviour of existing rules.
> 
> I'm leaning on leaving it as-is for that same reason unless there's a
> clear reason to change it...

The problem is, for example, that you cannot <!--#include
virtual="rewritten-url" -->, since the subrequest won't be rewritten.
(Sure, this affects .htaccess rules only, but a lot of people don't have the
choice ...).

nd

Re: mod_rewrite: different behaviour on sub-requests - Why?

[Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, André Malo wrote:

> Hmm. After further thinking about it... I'm in favour of removing the
> check in 2.1. But I wouldn't backport it, since it *may* lead to a
> different behaviour of existing rules.

I'm leaning on leaving it as-is for that same reason unless there's a
clear reason to change it...

--Cliff