On 11/3/06, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2006, at 15:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here are some proposed definitions: > > Order Allow, Deny: Initially a flag for each incoming URL is set > to Deny. Then all Allow directives (i.e. "Allow foobar.org") are > applied followed by all Deny directives regardless or which order > the Allow and Deny directives appear after the Order directive. > > Order Deny, Allow: Initially a flag for each incoming URL is set > to Allow. Then all Deny directives (i.e. "Allow foobar.org") are > applied followed by all Allow directives regardless of which order > the Allow and Deny directives appear after the Order directive. +1. These are an improvement over what we have, and will alleviate much confusion.
I'm all for improvements, but this suggestions has lots of problem: - No space after the comma between Allow and Deny. - "for each incoming URL" is superfluous and confusing. - The mini example "(i.e. ...)" doesn't add anything - Why introduce the concept of a "flag"? I think it just obscures things. - It doesn't solve Chris' initially reported confusion, which is that it needs to be specified that the last evaluated directive wins. How about: Deny,Allow The access state is initially set to <em>allowed</em>. The Deny directives are then evaluated, followed by the Allow directives, with the last matching directive setting the final access state. Clients are allowed access if they do not match any Deny directive <strong>or</strong> they do match an Allow directive. Allow,Deny The access state is initially set to <em>denied</em>. The allow directives are then evaluated, followed by the Deny directives, with the last matching directive setting the final access state. Clients are allowed access if they do not match any Deny directive <strong>and</strong> they do match an allow directive. Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
