On Wednesday 09 November 2005 15:13, Joshua Slive wrote: > Nick Kew wrote: > > OK, I've made an effort at tackling filter.xml, one of the > > documentation todos. Since it's pretty much a complete > > rewrite, please review before I commit. > > > > > > > > <p>One of the major innovations in Apache 2 was the Filter Chain. > > I think this "historical" approach to documentation is a mistake (even > though I have used it myself at times). We still have statements in the > docs about how things differ from apache 1.1, and they look very silly. > Just say how things are, and point out changes only where they are > important.
Hmmm, I guess that makes sense. It's kind-of motivating things. But I think it makes sense at least to mention that the filter chain is an Apache2 innovation. > > This is basically > > > > independent of the request processing axis.</p> > > I don't really understand what you mean here. Perhaps the figure > explains it, but this statement doesn't really stand on its own. The figure exists in a couple of places already. Checking my bookmarks, it's Figure 1 at http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/12/15/apache-namespaces.html > > <p class="figure"> > > <img src="images/filter_arch.gif" width="550" height="379" alt= > > Make sure you include a png variant also. I thought the gif IP issues were purely historic now? > > <p>A limitation of this in Apache 2.0 was that the filter chain > > lacked flexibility. > > Again, this whole section is framed as history rather than as > documentation of a current server. Just say how things are now, and > point out any crucial changes. > > > <p>The Old Way is the only way to configure input filters, and is > > I'd call them "simple" and "flexible" or something like that, rather > than "old" and "new". > > > <p>In addition, the module <module>mod_ext_filter</module> allows > > for external programs to be defined as filters.</p> > > I think you forgot to delete this. No, I left that in deliberately. I've never used ext-filter myself, so I'm not in a position to say anything really useful about it, but it's still there for our users. Is it really glaringly out of place? Anyway, thanks for the comments. -- Nick Kew
