> Bruno De Fraine wrote:
> >
> > Is my interpretation of "short_circuit" v.s. regular path-based
> > authorization correct? Or if not, what is the impact of
> "short_circuit"?
> > Since performance problems are so apparent with path-based
> authorization,
> > why is this seemingly useful option given so little attention?
> >
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JamieEchlin [mailto:jamie.echlin_at_credit-suisse.com]
> Sent: 30 November 2010 17:55
> To: users_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Status of SVNPathAuthz short_circuit
>
> This is an excellent question, I have the same issues as
> Bruno, and I really
> can't add anything to the question to make it clearer. Just that, to
> rephrase, under what circumstances should you not use short_circuit?
>
> NB Unfortunately the replies to this thread should actually
> be a different
> thread.
>
> cheers, jamie
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://old.nabble.com/Status-of-SVNPathAuthz-short_circuit-tp29354617p30
341951.html
> Sent from the Subversion Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Hmm, interesting, I had not really looked at that part of my
configuration.
My reading is, like yours, that 'short-circuit' ignores any other
authorisation mechanism that may be configured in apache by talking
directly to mod_authz_svn... So if you ever tried to configure a
different directory-access-control module, it would be _silently_
ignored. The risk is someone trying to change the authz provider (or
add a new one) and wondering why it isn't working!
I think I will try `short-circuit` for myself and see if it helps us
too. Thanks for highlighting it.
~ mark c
Received on 2010-12-01 08:30:34 CET