Nick,
I understand the goal.
But what about indicating for each module the "hook phase" it is using
(first/middle/last).
Probably only one entry for most modules.
One entry fort some directives for complex ones.
Would this be so complex to read? I agree it would probably be ignored
by most readers, although the principle would be rather easy to understand.
For the moment, I have the impression that simplicity takes precedence
over exhaustiveness, no? Where else (apart from the code) could I find
this information?
If somebody has another idea how to compile it (like a separate table
containing every module "hook phase"), that's also a solution. Would it
be realistic to have a table with all modules "hook phase" (with several
entries for some of them)?
Regards,
Nick
On 2/5/2011 13:11, Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:56:10 +0200
Nick Gearls<nickgea...@gmail.com> wrote:
However, what about the proposition to indicate for every module (or
directive when needed) the phase it runs, to be able to determine
interactions? I guess this shouldn't be difficult when you know the
module. This could maybe even be generated automatically from the code?
No.
In the first place, for many directives there's no simple answer.
Secondly, the last thing our documentation needs is more confusing
complexity. "Too complex" is already the most common objection to
apache from users of corporate servers.
To think it through, take a look at
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.3/rewrite/tech.html#InternalAPI
which does what you ask. If all our documentation starts to
look like that, how many users will ever understand TFM?
Of course, if you want to prove me wrong, start writing!
