On Wednesday 02 January 2002 10:56, Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > In any case, should we have FilesToForbid and FilesToNotFind? That > way the names match the response and you can do as you like. Or we > could have something more generic that lets you specify the status > code and string, perhaps even multiple groups. > > Thoughts?
Whatever approach we go with, I agree that the name should be explicit. > Additionally, I would like to deny the use of extensions for my > site for various reasons: > - it's unnecessary > - some of my servlet code (in SitePage) parses the URL and I > don't want to have to test the site with and without extensions > - if the user bookmarks such a URL, it could break later when I > switch techniques > > I haven't thought about where to put that in the process. You'd still want to make sure extensions worked for .gif, .jpeg, etc. Apache's Rewrite directive or mod_rewrite could be used to make sure that extensions are left off. Do you want 404s or graceful URL rewrites when the extension is given? _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
