On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:43:32PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
As a compromise solution, how about:
* Implement user-defined patterns for now, using apr_fnmatch(), but
restrict the patterns to matching a single directory (so that we
only need fnmatch and not full glob support).
*
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joe Orton wrote:
Sounds reasonable: patch is below.
This removes support for Include somedir, by the argument that
include dirs will just trip people up unexpectedly, and Include
somedir/* is equivalent if they really want that behaviour. (Although
the ability to
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:04:47PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
This removes support for Include somedir, by the argument that
include dirs will just trip people up unexpectedly, and Include
somedir/* is equivalent if they really want that behaviour. (Although
the ability to recurse into
At 09:32 AM 5/28/2002, Justin asked:
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:04:47PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
This removes support for Include somedir, by the argument that
include dirs will just trip people up unexpectedly, and Include
somedir/* is equivalent if they really want that behaviour.
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 07:32:10AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:04:47PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
This removes support for Include somedir, by the argument that
include dirs will just trip people up unexpectedly, and Include
somedir/* is equivalent if they
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:01:57PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
The rationale goes: the feature is not really usable (you can't use it
easily with any editor which creates config files), and has surprising
behaviour (it works fine until you change a config file).
I'm assuming you meant:
* Joe Orton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 07:32:10AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:04:47PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
This removes support for Include somedir, by the argument that
include dirs will just trip people up unexpectedly, and
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Thom May wrote:
I'd be quite surprised if anyone in a mass vhosting environment _wasn't_
using it, to be honest. Especially the recursion.
This seems like a pretty bad thing to remove.
Could you provide more details about this? I can imagine some very
limited
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
Include is really only a convenience to the administrator. It can't be
used for distributed management, because anyone with write access to one
of these directories could easily crash the server at the next restart.
and that is different from having
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Marc Slemko wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
Include is really only a convenience to the administrator. It can't be
used for distributed management, because anyone with write access to one
of these directories could easily crash the server at the next
* Joshua Slive ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Thom May wrote:
I'd be quite surprised if anyone in a mass vhosting environment _wasn't_
using it, to be honest. Especially the recursion.
This seems like a pretty bad thing to remove.
Could you provide more details
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:01:57PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 07:32:10AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:04:47PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
This removes support for Include somedir, by the argument that
include dirs will just trip people up
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
Sure, I agree with all that. I'm just trying to figure out the use-case
for having Include dir/ recursively include subdirectories. If there is
such a case, we should keep it, but I don't know if there is.
In my experience tremendously useful in
On Tue, 28 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
Sure, I agree with all that. I'm just trying to figure out the use-case
for having Include dir/ recursively include subdirectories. If there is
such a case, we should keep it, but I don't know if
OK. I'm convinced. At least three people have said they use this
extensively, so we should continue to support it. Why don't we just keep
the existing behavior and add Include dir/*.conf as an option. We can
assume that people who are using recursively included directories are
smart
Currently config directory processing isn't very useful in practice
because all files in the config dir are loaded - so if you use an editor
which creates backup files, the backup file will still be loaded.
A simple way to fix this is to only load files in the config dir which
match the pattern
Joe Orton wrote:
Currently config directory processing isn't very useful in practice
because all files in the config dir are loaded - so if you use an editor
which creates backup files, the backup file will still be loaded.
A simple way to fix this is to only load files in the config dir
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 08:02:13AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
Currently config directory processing isn't very useful in practice
because all files in the config dir are loaded - so if you use an editor
which creates backup files, the backup file will still be loaded.
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 05:51, Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 08:02:13AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
Currently config directory processing isn't very useful in practice
because all files in the config dir are loaded - so if you use an editor
which creates
19 matches
Mail list logo
