Paul Querna wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration,
as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_rewrite,
and the other very limited tools available. Modern mod_rewrite
usage commonly looks like programming, but it's not designed as
a programming language. Result: confused and frustrated users.
This is what I had in mind when I suggested having <Lua> blocks of
code. No
need to invent a new language when a perfectly fine one exists...
+1, and embed Lua in the core, and a dozen problems just like this are
solved.
-0.5 PLEASE not in the core. Make mod_wombat a standard module and
part of the default moduleset, whatever, but let's not make more core
dependencies, please?!?
If I get voted down (which is still pretty likely especially if all the
pro-lua'ers will be at the hackathon, whereas I won't :)) at least
consider trying to limit the embedded interpreter to the parent process
and preventing it from being inherited by the children, if possible (to
remove completely unnecessary bloating)
Every complicated 'directive' is trying to be a programing language in
the config file, but they aren't.
Just look at SSLRequire, Rewrite*, MPM Process/Thread Management, Filter
chaining, large Auth{N,Z} chains, and more.
Imagine them not sucking.
Agreed. That's why we have modules like mod_wombat and mod_perl which
give you *better* directives. More flexible directives. And in
addition, the learning curve to learn to use these powerful directives
is still optional (ok - rewrite's a pretty damn big curve itself, but
many of the other above items aren't anywhere near as bad).
Issac
