doc: limit_except

[Igor Sysoev]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:51:47PM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote:

> On 3/15/07, Igor Sysoev <is at rambler-co.ru> wrote:
> >
> >The correct name should be "limit_methods_except". For example
> >
> >     limit_methods_except  GET {
> >         allow   ...
> >         deny    all;
> >     }
> >
> >All methods expect GET/HEAD are allowed to the specified hosts.
> 
> Thanks, I see.  Are you willing to accept suggestions for syntax
> improvement?  I ask because I've been working on documentation for
> nginx and, being a bit of a fanatic about clarity and simplicity, I
> have some ideas in that area.  And well-chosen names can make a huge
> difference - like between instant recognition and an hour's worth of
> experimenting to find out what is really meant.
> 
> "limit_except" is a good example of a bad name.  To be honest, I
> consider it an excellent candidate for the Atrocious Name Hall of
> Fame.  We can blame Apache.  ;)  I can think of 50 different ways to
> express it better.  I agree with you that "method" should probably be
> in the name.  But there are other ways, too.  I would get rid of
> "limit", for example; that's not the real meaning.  In fact, in my
> opinion it's quite misleading; since I think of limits as having to do
> with bounds on something that wants to grow, I waste time thinking in
> the wrong direction when trying to understand it.  But "limit_except"
> is just about authorization.  One possibility is an authorization
> block:
> 
>  authorization {  // spelled out to avoid confusion with "authority"
> in e.g. a uri
>     http-methods { //default: apply to all methods; spelled out to
> avoid name collisions
>                      ...
>                      exempt  FOO BAR;   // these are exempted from the rule
>      }
>      other-auth-directives...
>  }

May be "restrict_methods_except" ? Note, that directive should certainly 
speсify unrestricted methods.

And I do not want to use it for authorization only.


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