On 12/12/2016 03:20 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/12/2016 01:23 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What's the case where this catches recursion that the previous logic in
r1773861 did not handle? I'm trying to write a test that fails on
r1773861
and succeeds on r1773865, but I haven't figured it out yet.
I think it's more r1773862 that fixes your test case.
To clarify: I can't reproduce any problems with r1773861 in the first place,
even with ErrorDocument. I agree that r1773862 (and r1773865) work for me; I
just don't know what makes them functionally different. In my attempted test
cases, I can't find any case where the rr->pool used during the internal
redirect differs from the original r->pool.
Oh, right, I thought internal-requests were like sub-requests, with
rr->pool being a subpool of r->pool, but that's not the case as you
mention.
So I guess r1773861 is OK already, though the below may be simpler/cleaner now:
Thanks for the clarification. I am all for simpler and cleaner, assuming
it works the same. :D
--Jacob
