Why offer an option to a directive which makes it behave differently AND
have an explicit directive for that exact behaviour ? I see no gain from
this but a lot of potential harm in terms of user confusion. Better be
explicit and unambiguous -> 2)
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was about to commit a patch for mod_proxy.c, but around line 2230
>
> > else if (!strcmp(cmd->path, "~")) {
> > cmd->path = ap_getword_conf(cmd->pool, &arg);
> > if (!cmd->path)
> > return "<Proxy ~ > block must specify a path";
>
> !cmd->path should be !cmd->path[0] because 'ap_getword_conf' does not
> return NULL but an empty string, so the test can never be true.
>
> However, I've searched in the doc to get explanation of this '~' in <Proxy
> > block.
> There is nothing about it.
>
> Apparently <Proxy ~ xx> is equivalent to <ProxyMatch xx>
> So, should we:
> 1) just leave it as it is.
> 2) remove this behavior, which has never been documented.
> 3) update doc.
>
>
> My choice is 2) because
> - it has never been documented, so it is likely that no one use it
> - apparently it is equivalent to <ProxyMatch >
>
>
> Your opinion ?
>
> Best regards,
> CJ
>
>
