From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:57 AM
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > On Monday 27 August 2001 05:54, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > > From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:54 AM
> > > >
> > > > > Just out of curiosity, would it be easier if, for 2.0, we fixed the
> > > > > original bogosity of location walk by running it first, before
> > > > > directory walk, and simply forbid its use within .htaccess? That would
> > > > > eliminate most of the issues regarding wasted time spent checking
> > > > > directories for things that are only virtual namespaces.
> >
> > 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?
>
> Either I am missing something, or there is an error in the docs; the 1.3
> docs state that <Location> is not allowed in .htaccess.
Correct. The array of <Location > directives is stored in the virtual server.
Changes to the virtual host, or the uri itself, both necessitate rewalking the
<Location > list. That's why location_walk is invoked twice.
