At 08:36 PM 10/13/2002, Joshua Slive wrote: >André Malo wrote: >>I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first >>suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named >>them "obs_*" and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by >>Joshua they got the status "Obsolete" and also a large warning on top of >>the page. The modules are listed on module index >><http://cvs.apache.org/~nd/manual/mod/> > >+1. That is about what I had in mind. The <note> at the top could be improved a >little. Something along the lines, "This module was replaced in version 2.0.44 and >greater by <module>mod_...</module> (and mod_...). >For more information, see ..." > >>I think we need a document that explains exactly the changes and the new >>provider mechanism, so we may set links from both (pre and post) module >>docs. > >Absolutely essential before the next release. If it is simple it can go in >upgrading.html. If it is complicated, it should get a separate doc and be linked >from there. > >One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed. That just seems >like a gratuitous change that hurts users and doesn't really help developers.
On that same thought... mod_auth_basic is equally obtuse. Renaming it back to mod_auth doesn't seem like a stretch (if you consider that the simplest auth is basic.) Of course, we don't lose the ability to leave mod_auth unloaded and simply load mod_auth_digest. Obviously, loading mod_authn_file, mod_authn_default, mod_authz_file, mod_authz_default, mod_authz_groupfile, mod_authz_host, and mod_authz_user are going to be required to retain behavior that folks are expecting. But at least the renames could go. BTW André, nice start. I'd call out "mod_auth (prior to 2.0.44)" as it's index entry, if we keep the mod_auth_basic concept. Likewise for mod_access. Bill Bill
