https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
Jan Wolter <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED | Ever Confirmed|1 |0 --- Comment #3 from Jan Wolter <[email protected]> 2011-10-10 02:07:48 UTC --- Do I understand correctly that to able to use authn_socache from a .htaccess file, there now needs to be this argumentless "AuthnCacheEnable" command someplace in the main config file? So if I'm an ISP with thousands of clients on my servers and I think one of them might someday want to use authn_socache, then I ought to put "AuthnCacheEnable" in my config files? This seems bizarre. If I have the mod_authn_socache module installed, then haven't I already indicated my desire that it be available? Why do I need a directive that says "Not only do I want you to be installed, I want you to work too!" I don't understand it. Philosophy aside, I think there is still a problem. I haven't tested it, just looked at the code, but it looks to me like if you forget to put "AuthnCacheEnable" into the config file, and try to use it from a .htaccess file, then you'd still get a Segmentation Violation. Wouldn't it be better if it generated a nice neat "You forgot to put the meaningless AuthnCacheEnable directive into your config file so I'm going to ignore you, neener neener" message? Or better yet, just went ahead and initialized itself? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
