nginx undocumented directives
ru at nginx.com
Thu Dec 28 12:25:33 UTC 2017
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:42:25PM +0200, Gena Makhomed wrote:
> Hello, All!
> Scanning nginx sources and nginx documentation
> I found some directives, which present in nginx sources
> but absent in nginx documentation:
Internally, we have a document that explains why certain directives
+ use iocp
These are undocumented b/c ngx_iocp_module is non-functional.
These are undocumented b/c we consider them "excessive configuraion".
This used to be a hack for one big company, but isn't suitable for
This is undocumented with the following notes: "no working examples,
no eval in recent uWSGI). Sorry, but I don't remember what exactly
this means. :)
This module needs more work.
You already know the answer.
There are no notes of why these aren't documented.
> post_action is known dangerous directive, it undocumented
> by purpose and in vim syntax file it marked accordingly:
> syn keyword ngxDirectiveError contained post_action
> But what about all rest undocumented directives, they are undocumented
> by purpose or through inadvertence, and may be in the near future
> all it (except post_action directive) will be documented?
> And second question: how they are should be marked in nginx syntax file,
> as normal nginx directives, or color mark it as undocumented directives?
> For example:
> syn keyword ngxDirectiveUndocumented contained acceptex_read
> syn keyword ngxDirectiveUndocumented contained degradation
> syn keyword ngxDirectiveUndocumented contained uwsgi_string
> hi link ngxDirectiveUndocumented Constant
More information about the nginx-devel