On Saturday 26 November 2005 07:11, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On November 25, 2005 1:08:12 PM +0000 Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is is really appropriate to lock in an inaccurate and confusing module > > name for the entire 2.2.x era, just to avoid another beta/RC ? > > Good grief. mod_authz_host is *far* more accurate and less confusing than > mod_access. > > Once again, I'm against renaming this module.
Fine. It's mod_access in 1.x and 2.0. The users expect mod_access. And it hasn't actually changed in any significant manner. So that's mod_access, then. > If we do the authz rewrite Then that becomes the time to propose a name change away from mod_access. > we have discussed on the list recently (the last time this rename was > brought up), it really *will* be mod_authz_host Discussed? I don't recollect anything more than a vague passing reference, in about the same level of detail as this post. > and we'd have flipped the > module name for no reason. That's what renaming to mod_authz_host does, and what some of us oppose. > Again, for those who don't actually read the mailing list and just randomly > post stuff, the rewrite we discussed on list would combine the > access_checker and auth_checker hook into one hook - which is how > authorization should be partitioned anyhow. -- justin But we haven't done any such thing. If and when we do - and I have yet to see your proposals for implementing Satisfy logic in a single hook - then a change to something like, say, mod_authz_host, might merit discussion. -- Nick Kew
