Asking, for good measure...

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

if is there any valid reason to process arguments in mod_include 
in series, as we do?  An example patch of a more flexible set 
tag is attached, for illustration.

It further unsets the variable, if there is no value.  Any reason
not to introduce this?

Bill

Re: Asking, for good measure...

[Brian Pane <bp...@pacbell.net>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

>if is there any valid reason to process arguments in mod_include 
>in series, as we do?  An example patch of a more flexible set 
>tag is attached, for illustration.
>
>It further unsets the variable, if there is no value.  Any reason
>not to introduce this?
>
>Bill
>

The changes look reasonable to me.

BTW, I just noticed another problem in that function:

 static int handle_set(include_ctx_t *ctx, apr_bucket_brigade **bb,
                        request_rec *r, ap_filter_t *f, apr_bucket 
*head_ptr,
                        apr_bucket **inserted_head)
  {
      char *tag     = NULL;
      char *tag_val = NULL;
      char *var     = NULL;
      apr_bucket *tmp_buck;
      char parsed_string[MAX_STRING_LEN];

Another 8KB buffer on the stack. I'll add this to my
list of things to fix between now and 2.0 GA.

--Brian