On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, André Malo wrote:
> Hmm. After further thinking about it... I'm in favour of removing the
> check in 2.1. But I wouldn't backport it, since it *may* lead to a
> different behaviour of existing rules.
I'm leaning on leaving it as-is for that same reason unless there's a
clear r
* Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>>> (see bug http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21814 ).
>>>
>>> I suggest to disarm this section if not removing it from mod_rewrite.c...
>>
>> This was added immediately after the inclusion of mod_rewrite into
>> the httpd code (some years ago). I beli
* Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, André Malo wrote:
>
>> Hmm. After further thinking about it... I'm in favour of removing the
>> check in 2.1. But I wouldn't backport it, since it *may* lead to a
>> different behaviour of existing rules.
>
> I'm leaning on leaving it as-is for that s
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, André Malo wrote:
> The problem is, for example, that you cannot , since the subrequest won't be rewritten.
> (Sure, this affects .htaccess rules only, but a lot of people don't have the
> choice ...).
Ah. Well, okay, +1 for 2.1 then.
>> Can somebody enlight me what this code in mod_rewrite.c is good for?
>>
>> static int hook_fixup(request_rec *r)
>> {
>>[...]
>> /* we shouldn't do anything in subrequests */
>> if (r->main != NULL) {
>> return DECLINED;
>> }
>>
>> It took me days to track down what is
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can somebody enlight me what this code in mod_rewrite.c is good for?
>
> static int hook_fixup(request_rec *r)
> {
>[...]
> /* we shouldn't do anything in subrequests */
> if (r->main != NULL) {
> return DECLINED;
> }
>
> It took me days to tr
Hello everybody!
Can somebody enlight me what this code in mod_rewrite.c is good for?
static int hook_fixup(request_rec *r)
{
[...]
/* we shouldn't do anything in subrequests */
if (r->main != NULL) {
return DECLINED;
}
It took me days to track down what is is not good for
