> > I think what Roy is suggesting is that we eliminate the second
> > LocationWalk. I am a tentative +1 on his suggestion. And it doesn't make
> > sense to allow Location directives in .htaccess files (use of Location
> > implies we are not serving out of the file system anyway). I don't see any
> > problems right off hand...
>
> Just a question, but what if you are using .htaccess files to partition things
> up for virtual hosts? For example, I am running a server and both Roy and
> Bill have sites on it. Since I am a control freak, I refuse to give either access
> to httpd.conf, but because I am also lazy, I have allowed both to use
> .htaccess files. In that case, don't people need to be able to put <localtion>
> directives inside of .htaccess files?
>
Perhaps. I'm taking a very narrow view of the purpose for Location directives (which
may
or may not be "right"). If we are serving content from the file system, then we should
use
File/Directory et. al. directives. If the content we are serving is not backed by a
file
system, then we should use Location directives. And the two should not overlap. Given
those conditions, should the site admin (bill/roy) be able to control (via Location
directives) any aspect of how a back-end, non file system based content generator is
configured? Examples?
Bill
