Huh? "Additional information not already available" ??? Try authn/authz, for one. Or, how about "Do we have a handler that can handle this resource?" Or, 'hmm... <Files .bak> are never to be served.
We must run the entire process_request_internal to know that a file listed in autoindex is servable. If you wanted a toggle for the operator to say, "Hey, who cares, give me back the CPU cycle and they can see anything I'm foolish enough to put in those directories!!!", I'd be +1 for such a directive. And skip the lookup altogether. But that's -only- by choice, it should not be the default for the obvious security-related reasons. But you aren't describing anything that fancyindexing on 1.3 didn't already do. No surprise here. Bill At 11:48 AM 3/13/2002, you wrote: >ap_process_request_internal() is called at the very end of >ap_sub_req_lookup() and I don't >see that it is providing any additional information that is not already >available prior to >the call (ie, we already have stat'ed the file and know all the finfo >required by the >caller). The only useful thing that I see happening is authentication. >Otherwise, we do >not want to run translate_name or most of the other hooks as far as I can >see... > >Bill > > > We call that function in all of the ap_sub_req_lookup functions. The > > purpose is to run all of the hooks that are required for creating a > > request successfully. > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > What is the purpose of calling ap_process_request_internal() in > > > ap_sub_req_lookup_dirent()? > > > > > > Bill > > > >
