Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Author: wrowe >> Date: Thu Aug 23 17:54:15 2007 >> New Revision: 569204 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=569204&view=rev >> Log: >> SEDFILTER has several anomolies; first, it's not SED syntax, >> but more mod-rewrite like (and using the rewrite pcre parser). >> Secondly, 'FILTER' in the filter name is redundant. Simplify, >> by renaming this 'REWRITE' filter. > > IMO, changing this from sedfilter to mod_rewrite_filter > actually is more confusing (or would be) to end users, since > we have a mod_rewrite already. IMO mod_rewrite_content > would be a better choice, esp if mod_rewrite was called > mod_rewrite_url...
Ack, I've heard that. Was seeking a name that might fit better, but I can certainly appreciate how this might be confusing. Plus, it doesn't deserve the swiss army knife stigma that mod_rewrite has. > In any case, I don't feel strongly enough about it > to do anymore than send this single post... Actually, please scroll down to the dialog, some good ideas down there. I'm only waiting for a couple people to agree on a name to adjust this once again :) Bill
