On 4/1/06, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 03/31/2006 06:53 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > > > Some concerns about the else path: > > > > a) is 500 proper? should it just return OK instead? > > I think 500 is good. > > > > > b) what about logging that path to ensure that the administrator has > > some help diagnosing the problem, since we can't carry the > > apr_status_t any further than here? > > > > There are concerns of too much logging (filter has already logged > > something) or too little logging (filter didn't log anything). The > > access log won't have any strong hints that something bad happened > > since r->status didn't get changed and c->aborted didn't get set. > > What about the debug level for this log message? Would this be a compromise > between too much logging and no logging?
yep ;) I'll move the patch to trunk, change it to return OK where original patch returned r->status, integrate your logging patch, and commit, if it holds up under more varied testing.
