On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Guenter Knauf <fua...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Jeff, > Am 15.12.2012 15:00, schrieb Jeff Trawick: > >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:04 AM, <fua...@apache.org >> <mailto:fua...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> Author: fuankg >> Date: Thu Dec 13 10:04:51 2012 >> New Revision: 1421184 >> >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**rev=1421184&view=rev<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1421184&view=rev> >> >> <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?**rev=1421184&view=rev<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1421184&view=rev> >> > >> Log: >> Added Windows CGI samples. >> >> Added: >> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/**docs/cgi-examples/printenv.vbs >> (with props) >> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/**docs/cgi-examples/printenv.wsf >> (with props) >> >> >> I don't understand why we ship this. >> >> If some Windows user wants to find out how to write a CGI script in yet >> another language they can bing it. >> >> We have had a couple of very basic examples from the dark ages of the >> web, and that is MUCH more than enough IMO, particularly since these >> particular examples are information leaks as soon as somebody enables >> them. >> > my motivation for these was that the .vbs is like a counterpart to > test-cgi, and for the .wsf BZ 51359 to show that we dont need another > shebang test in the code. These samples are in-active same as printenv and > test-cgi (no active shebang), and if we trust that a Unix admin knows what > he does when he activates them why dont we trust a Windows admin too? > If you think those samples are bad remove them again, but then please also > remove printenv and test-cgi which are basically same. > > Gün. > > Here's a compromise. Use 2.4.x/STATUS to see if you get two more votes to add the two new CGIs to the 2.4.x install. If two other people agree, I'll be quiet. I know these files are under docs, but changing code that gets installed should be voted on. (Even a recent tweak to printenv went through STATUS.) I don't think avoiding adding these new features requires removing the existing, similar ones, though I'm +1 for removing the existing ones from trunk. Why can't a tiny example in the documentation show what is needed to have a script that httpd can execute? The Windows platform documentation has a few comments about CGIs and the CGI tutorial documentation has a tiny amount of Windows information. Somewhere in there is a reasonable place to document any Windows-specific issues in this area. -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
