* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:18:55 +0100, André Malo wrote
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_autoindex: new directive IndexStyleSheet
Hmm, why not new IndexOption? Isn't that what Indexoptions are for?
You mean somthing like:
IndexOpion
André Malo wrote:
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:18:55 +0100, André Malo wrote
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_autoindex: new directive IndexStyleSheet
Hmm, why not new IndexOption? Isn't that what Indexoptions are for?
You mean somthing like:
IndexOpion
André Malo wrote:
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:18:55 +0100, André Malo wrote
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_autoindex: new directive IndexStyleSheet
Hmm, why not new IndexOption? Isn't that what Indexoptions are for?
You mean somthing like:
IndexOpion
* William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NOOO
;-)
rofl seriously this option is too overloaded as it is. Let's try to
leave boolean flags in IndexOptions, but create new directive names if
they are non-trival choices.
IndexOptions CSS=/foo/bar.css
Hmm. What about *width,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ianh2003/11/19 19:45:23
Modified:.CHANGES
docs/manual/mod mod_autoindex.xml
modules/generators mod_autoindex.c
which prompts me to add a section on special documentation issues to my
submitting-your-patch changes,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_autoindex: new directive IndexStyleSheet
Hmm, why not new IndexOption? Isn't that what Indexoptions are for?
nd
--On Sunday, March 2, 2003 1:45 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd 2003/03/02 05:45:00
Modified:modules/generators Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH mod_autoindex.c
Log:
WS and style issues. No code changes.
For future reference, we should not backport style changes to the stable
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Sunday, March 2, 2003 1:45 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nd 2003/03/02 05:45:00
Modified:modules/generators Tag: APACHE_2_0_BRANCH mod_autoindex.c
Log:
WS and style issues. No code changes.
For future reference, we should not
Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:50:14PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 2002/05/31 13:50:14
Modified:modules/generators mod_autoindex.c
Log:
if we autoindex, discard the request body and check for any
errors doing so
When a
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:50:14PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 2002/05/31 13:50:14
Modified:modules/generators mod_autoindex.c
Log:
if we autoindex, discard the request body and check for any
errors doing so
When a request finishes, it will toss the request
Modified:modules/generators mod_autoindex.c
Log:
This is a HACK! The problem is that the fast_internal_redirect is
removing the OLD_WRITE filter. Obviously that is wrong. For right
now,
the fix is to hack around the problem and just make it work. Long
term,
we need to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rbb 02/04/05 09:50:37
Modified:modules/generators mod_autoindex.c
Log:
This is a HACK!
Why would it be difficult for the core to preserve OLD_WRITE in the subreq
filter chain? We knew how to do that in 2.0.32. One would hope we get smarter
as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rbb 02/04/05 09:50:37
Modified:modules/generators mod_autoindex.c
Log:
This is a HACK!
Why would it be difficult for the core to preserve OLD_WRITE in the
subreq
filter chain? We knew how to do that in 2.0.32. One would hope we
get
Ryan Bloom wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rbb 02/04/05 09:50:37
Modified:modules/generators mod_autoindex.c
Log:
This is a HACK!
Why would it be difficult for the core to preserve OLD_WRITE in the
subreq
filter chain? We knew how to do that in
Ryan Bloom wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rbb 02/04/05 09:50:37
Modified:modules/generators mod_autoindex.c
Log:
This is a HACK!
Why would it be difficult for the core to preserve OLD_WRITE in
the
subreq
filter chain? We knew how to do
Greg Ames wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that the fast_internal_redirect is removing the OLD_WRITE
filter.
I'm going to try it on my box without this patch, and with no Multiviews (to get
rid of fast_internal_redirects for HEADER and README). If that works with
The problem is that the fast_internal_redirect is removing
the
OLD_WRITE filter.
I'm going to try it on my box without this patch, and with no
Multiviews
(to get
rid of fast_internal_redirects for HEADER and README). If that
works
with HEAD
as well as it did in 2.0.32,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List files that would result in HTTP_UNAUTHORIZED in addition to
successes and redirections, since there's a chance the client will
actually have the proper authorization to retrieve them.
-1 (yes, a veto). Standard security practice: you don't
expose even
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List files that would result in HTTP_UNAUTHORIZED in addition to
successes and redirections, since there's a chance the client will
actually have the proper authorization to retrieve them.
-1 (yes, a
Cliff Woolley wrote:
Reverted.
Ta. 401 and 500 are (or can be) slightly special cases. 401
because we're not sure the user can access the resource and
shouldn't let him know it even exists without that surety. And
500 because we're not sure what went wrong, and if the
config error were
20 matches
Mail list logo
