error_page and named locations

[Igor Clark]

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.

Cheers,
Igor Clark
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.