On Friday 28 February 2003 18:09, Kurt Bigler wrote: > on 2/28/03 12:44 PM, Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 27 February 2003 13:01, George Shaunfield wrote:
<snip> > > Also, if anyone is still really hurting for functionality, NOW IS THE > > TIME to mention it! The worst that can happen is that I'll say "heck no, > > write it yourself!" If you never mention it, then I probably won't think > > of it on my own. And if you wait too long, I'm more likely to say "no" > > because I won't remember my code as clearly. > > Well, after having a day off, I want to come back to the other issues I was > bringing up. > > In fact, you have implemented everything you need, everything I _really_ > need, most things that others came up with, with some extra growing room. Which was my overall goal. That's a good thing. It can only improve from here. > > So let me join everyone else in thanking you for pulling that all off, and > in very little time. > > When I was in the thick of trying to assimilate it all a couple days back > with not enough time available, I think my words were a little rough. Understandable. Emails were flying around a very quick pace. And they were usually very long, like this email. I think I neglected to describe some things properly myself on more than one occassion. No big deal. > > What I really want to offer at this point is to to clean up a couple things > for posterity, even if it is just icing on the cake. I'm listening. > I won't go deep into > the details here, but I think there are advantages to having a single > concept that handles everything it can rather than introducing additional > options. And the wildcard concept you have already picked is quite capable > of doing it, so I say let's just do it. Ok. > > I only propose this on the basis that there will be no disadvantages, and > that you will like the result. And you _don't_ have to do all the work > yourself! Well, if it's easy, it would probably be better for me to do it myself since I'm pretty familiar with my own code right now. If we wait a month, I won't be, and I'll have to rely on my comments to jar my memory. But, I really wouldn't mind having you look the code over. You haven't stated your aptitude or experience level in C yet, but if you're capable it never hurts to proof read. If you wanna add something while you're in there, then go for it. Submit it to the list. If they like it, then it's golden. If they don't, they'll tell ya why. :) Kinda like you have with me this last week or so. > > Here is what I propose. Let me test your latest, look at your code, and > see if I can come up with some minor changes to that code that will > accomplish what I am suggesting. Then I'll run those changes by you first. > If you find disadvantages, then we just forget it. If it turns out ok, > you can leave the next patch release to me if you want, or do it yourself. Your code, your release. Your glory. > > In the meantime, if you want, we can discuss the actual user-interface > (logoindomainlist file) details on the list. I'll just summarize here > briefly what I would like to see. I would like the wildcarding > implementation to be "complete" by the following criterion, which I will > describe in terms of how the doc will look. I would like the documentation > to be able to say (not in exactly these words) that you can do anything you > want using a single wildcard (*) appearing anywhere in the second field, > when used to match against HTTP_HOST, and if a * appears in the first > field, it stands for whatever the * matched in the 2nd field. But the * is > not required to appear in the 1st field, which can even be blank. I see > several advantages: > > (1) it allows the allvirtual option to go away Went away already. I'm currently just looking for an asterisk in the modifier field. Not sure if I mentioned this in my release notes, but I meant to mention it in the docs which I haven't yet gotten around to writing. > (2) it avoids needing to add what you were describing 2 days ago as the '-' > modifier How so? I thought that modifier was pretty darn important. > (3) it probably allows one more feature, important or not, that I don't > think was brought up, which is to map several web domains via wildcard onto > a single mail domain - perhaps useful if you have a .com/.org/.net combo > but don't have aliased mail domains You can map .com/.org.net combos already. Say the domain is bob.com. If you put: bob.*:bob.*:* Then it'll match anything with bob.*. You can also do: bob.*:mail.bob.*:* and it'll rewrite mail.bob.* to bob.* or: *:*:* which obviously includes everything. If each of these where in the same file, it would try to match the ones at the top first, then work it's way down until it reached the catch-all '*:*:*'. The first match wins. > (4) maybe by fully implemeting wildcarding it allows something else we > haven't thought of yet I consider the current setup to BE a full implementation of wildcarding. Let me know if I missed something. > > Though I am being spare on details here, I think I have learned from > experiences over the last week that for the participation of the whole list > to work well, it is good to have the details spelled out in examples. So > if you approve, I will write something up in the next couple of days. I > might want to install your latest patch first, so I can see the code and > have the implementation in mind. I certainly don't want to go ahead > without your approval, since there is no point in fragmenting the community > by moving without consensus. I'm not arrogant enough to contest a patch that the list likes unless it breaks functionality I need or might use in the future. If your patch adds genuine value to the program then I doubt anyone will complain. > > Thanks again for listening. Thanks again for writing. > > -Kurt Bigler > > > Thanks everyone! > > > > Enjoy the new code! > > > > Jesse > > <snip> -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net We are actively looking for companies that do a lot of long distance faxing and want to cut their long distance bill by up to 50%. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info.
