You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> on 2009/05/12 09:57:08 UTC

Why does SetHandler have ForceHandler semantics?

Inspired by Rich's feature request in PR#47184, I wondered why

<Directory /foo>
	SetHandler FooDefault
	AddHandler my-handler .foo .bar
</Directory>

doesn't have "specificity" semantics, wherein the AddHandler
overrides the SetHandler.

Turns out the latter gets set in core_override_type(), which is
a fixups hook, and unconditionally overrides anything set by
mod_mime or other module.  The semantics are "ForceType".

Why?

Does something bad happen if we check r->handler for what
some-other-module may have set before overriding it?

-- 
Nick Kew

Re: Why does SetHandler have ForceHandler semantics?

Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.

Nick Kew wrote:
> Inspired by Rich's feature request in PR#47184, I wondered why
> 
> <Directory /foo>
>     SetHandler FooDefault
>     AddHandler my-handler .foo .bar
> </Directory>
> 
> doesn't have "specificity" semantics, wherein the AddHandler
> overrides the SetHandler.

The SetFoo -override- is designed to override all AddFoo soft associations.

> Does something bad happen if we check r->handler for what
> some-other-module may have set before overriding it?

Yes; you break configs (bazillions of them).