DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17239>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17239 mention the logical relation of multiple "Require" statements ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-02-20 13:44 ------- Thanks for the heads-up on 2.1. But in general, I would guess that equivalent functions will be available also in 2.1? If so, IMHO, the impact of such statements is a little bit under-documented. While relatively scant documentation is o.k. for other features, I think that security/access control/auth needs a little bit more care. Just saying the result of cumulating certain directives is "undefined" or "ad hoc" depending on particular implementations scares me when it is about security. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
