[email protected] wrote: > Author: niq > Date: Sat Jul 18 23:53:16 2009 > New Revision: 795451 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=795451&view=rev > Log: > Amend PR47184 backport proposal: s/DefaultHandler/DefaultMapping/ > as per discussion on the list and wrowe subsequent veto. > > - * mod_dir: add DefaultHandler directive > + * mod_dir: add DefaultMapping directive ... > - -1: wrowe; why 'DefaultHandler' is a bad choice for directive name posted > to list
No; that veto stands. "Hander" was not the bad choice. "Default" is the bad choice. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/default See 5 b, it's meaning is crystal clear... 5 b: a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user In the httpd context, "Default" refers to a setting or action which is applied in the absence of any configuration setting. That is not what your patch does. For this to be a "Default" behavior, all content, existing or not found, must be processed by this handler. We have such a directive in mod_alias, which is the Action directive. FallbackHandler, FallbackAction, there are a host of directive names you could choose that do *not imply* that the behavior affects all requests which aren't otherwise configured. This directive also belongs in mod_actions. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_actions.html Please restore my veto, thanks. Bill
