On 05/06/2009 10:13 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > On 06.05.2009 21:33, Rainer Jung wrote: >> While working on additional windows commandline options I noticed, that >> there is no consistent checking for validity of the "-k" arguments. >> >> Those arguments are handled by the rewrite args hook, and some MPMs seem >> to care somehow about invalid or duplicate "-k" arguments (e.g. Unix >> outputs a somewhat wrong error message about -k being unknown), windows >> seems to start the service when an unknown command is given. >> >> I would like to output a better error message for unknown or duplicate >> commands (easy) and then call usage(). At the moment usage() is static >> in main.c and there is not a single header file directly in the server/ >> directory. >> >> So I would like to add a private header file in the server directory, at >> the moment only containing usage() and switch usage() from static to >> AP_DECLARE. Would that be right? I guess we have no reason to include it >> in the public include files contained in includes/. >> >> Another possibility would be to let the rewrite args hook return a >> value, stop processing as soon as one module doesn't return OK and call >> the usage whenever rewrite args for a module do not return OK. I think >> that's a bit fragile, because in the long run, more return values might >> show up and cases, where usage() is not the right way to react, so >> making usage() available in the mpm-specific module argument handling >> seems to be the better way. >> >> Of course the usage message at the moment doesn't really reflect the MPM >> architecture. The commandline specialities are reflected by ifdefs in >> the usage, but that's another topic. For the above needed hardening of >> parsing the -k flags, the usage message as it exists today is enough. >> >> Comments? > > While experimenting with that: on Windows mpm_winnt.c can't use > something in main.c, only vice versa. So usage() would have to be moved > from main.c into any other file included in libhttpd (or a new one). > Still the question is: is this the right way to go? If so, should I add > a small new file with usage(), since the names of the existing ones do > not really make a good fit?
How about the existing util.c? Regards Rüdiger
