Re: mod_include: include virtual and error handling
On 02 Nov 2010, at 10:34 PM, Nick Kew wrote: The lack of this one feature is the most cited reason I've been given for why people have moved away from mod_include as a template processor to other template processors within other servers. Rather than moving to an entirely new type of server, I'd rather we just fix the core problem. Wouldn't the same argument support an onerror=url clause too? Yes, you can use an errordocument. But there seem to be a lot of users who find that a difficult concept to grasp (an error document that we intentionally use???), so it's not really a great answer. Besides, an errordocument could easily end up getting overloaded! The implementation should presumably be straightforward alongside what you propose, and could use an errordocument processing path. +1. Turns out they would both work a very similar way. Regards, Graham --
Re: mod_include: include virtual and error handling
As long as the default behavior continues unchanged, it seems harmless. I just wonder how many users would find a use for it? I assume you have a use case in mind? Dan
Re: mod_include: include virtual and error handling
On 02 Nov 2010, at 7:02 PM, Dan Poirier wrote: As long as the default behavior continues unchanged, it seems harmless. I just wonder how many users would find a use for it? I assume you have a use case in mind? The lack of this one feature is the most cited reason I've been given for why people have moved away from mod_include as a template processor to other template processors within other servers. Rather than moving to an entirely new type of server, I'd rather we just fix the core problem. Regards, Graham --
Re: mod_include: include virtual and error handling
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:23:07 +0200 Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: The lack of this one feature is the most cited reason I've been given for why people have moved away from mod_include as a template processor to other template processors within other servers. Rather than moving to an entirely new type of server, I'd rather we just fix the core problem. Wouldn't the same argument support an onerror=url clause too? Yes, you can use an errordocument. But there seem to be a lot of users who find that a difficult concept to grasp (an error document that we intentionally use???), so it's not really a great answer. Besides, an errordocument could easily end up getting overloaded! The implementation should presumably be straightforward alongside what you propose, and could use an errordocument processing path. -- Nick Kew
