error_page and named locations

[Igor Sysoev]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 04:05:34PM +0100, Igor Clark wrote:

> Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:50:21AM +0100, Igor Clark wrote:
> > 
> >> If there's an implied
> >> 
> >> 3) falls back to a named location if no file is found
> >> 
> >> then I think it would be good to have some reference to the fallback 
> >> functionality, even if it's optional, as explicit names are more clear, 
> >> and for people trying to read documentation, directive names with 
> >> 'hidden' functionality are hard to find.
> > 
> > Yes, however, fallback is not optional. The directive has at least two
> > parameters: the last one will be always fallback and it may be
> > @named_location or /uri/that/should/not/fail.
> 
> Ah, OK.
> 
> >> The 'uri' bit, on the other hand, can be assumed, as we know from the 
> >> fact that we're in a location block that this directive is dealing with 
> >> a particular URI, so we need to express what this directive does to 
> >> fulfil the request for that URI.
> >> 
> >> So I'd like to suggest something like 'try_files_with_fallback' - it's 
> >> perhaps a bit wordy, but seems to express more clearly what's happening.
> > 
> > I think fallback should not be mentioned.
> 
> Yes, I think you're right, because it's one of a list of options being 
> tried, and in a sense it's not actually a fallback, it's just the last 
> option.
> 
> use_* is good because it makes it clear that one of the options /will/ 
> be used; try_* is good because it makes it clear that the arguments are 
> tried in turn until one /can/ be used. *_file is perhaps less good 
> because it implies only files can be used in the list.
> 
> Maybe use_resource or try_resource? I'd probably go for use_resource, 
> otherwise, out of the existing proposed names, I'd vote for use_file.

It should be certainly _file to indicate that a real files are tested.

How about try_to_use_file(s) ?


-- 
Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/