https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48359
--- Comment #11 from Nick Kew <[email protected]> 2010-01-20 18:03:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > Unfortunately, the list doesn't have this thread, in any case bugzilla is fine > for accepting or rejecting patches with a rational. > > You've rejected this because, as you state, modules might rely on percolating > their changes up a level. If these are pool allocated, as you point out, the > upstream modules crash. If these are static or an 'unset' operation, they > would not crash. > > But the subrequest is distinct and should *not* pollute the top level request. Not good enough. We have an API that supports this, and a contract with the world not to break that API in the lifetime of 2.2. "Should not" is no part of that. We haven't told module developers not to manipulate headers in a subrequest, nor even to check whether they're in a subrequest (e.g. something running from mod_includes). Nor have we forbidden modules to reverse-engineer other modules observed to have side-effects such as manipulating headers. > Thanks for making me spend more time considering this, so I'm quite certain > that Jake's observations were correct. Yes, they're correct. And indeed they're *observations* of how things are, with a balanced suggestion that we either change it (fine for 2.4) or document it. No quarrel with that. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
