I couldn't find alot of info on testing. I also couldn't find any
tests that included multiple files... so I may be looking in the wrong
place. I eventually found and played with the tester stuff.
Attached are the files I added to the tester to exploit the include
problem. SSIInclude09.shtml
-Original Message-
From: Paul Speed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Actually, while I'm on that subject, the diffs are extensive since
I've pretty much touched every SSI related file in a very significant
way... in addition to removing a few of them. What is the preferred
way to
-Original Message-
From: Paul Speed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
I now have this working on my system here. It currently passes all
of the tester tests in addition to about 7 more tests that I added
myself here locally. I also added the initial support for the set
Bip Thelin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Paul Speed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
For the curious reader, after looking into this code at some length
it seems clear why the set command was not added. All SSI requests
share the same environment, which not only makes a set
-Original Message-
From: Paul Speed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
Actually, includes should share the environment of the parent...
in fact, if they set server variables the parent will see them.
Ok, that might be true(just looked at Apache's behavior and they
seem to do just
On a vaguely related note...
For the curious reader, after looking into this code at some length
it seems clear why the set command was not added. All SSI requests
share the same environment, which not only makes a set command
impossible but also means that multiple SSI requests (or even
-Original Message-
From: Paul Speed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
For the curious reader, after looking into this code at some length
it seems clear why the set command was not added. All SSI requests
share the same environment, which not only makes a set command
impossible but
