On 29.07.2014 12:55, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 29.07.2014 12:25, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Brane wrote:
>> if the patterns were:
>> (Ugh, I don't like the prefix '*' which I think you're using to mean
>> 'wildcards enabled'.)
>> I don't care what prefix we use, but I do care that the rules that contain
>> wildcards have a different syntax than the rules that do not. Otherwise,
>> existing authz files (that may contain literal wildcard/pattern characters)
>> would stop working.
>> We currently support two forms of patterns:
>> the distinguishing feature is that in both cases, the literal-fspath must
>> begin with a slash, otherwise the rule is invalid. If we want to support
>> wildcards, we have to invent a different syntax for wildcard rules. My
>> working proposal is to add a literal '*' before the leading slash in the
>> because neither of these syntaxes are currently valid. We can invent a
>> different syntax, as long as it maintains that property; and we cannot
>> replace the brackets around the rule with something else, without making
>> very intrusive changes in the config parser code.
> Another approach might be to add an "options" section to the authz
> file (in a way that it is ignored by older servers), where one could
> specify a matching strategy (and if needed 'priority' strategy and so
> matching = literal | basic-wildcards | regex | ...
> Then it's not hidden as a syntax-artifact, but more explicit ...
Yes, well, I really don't want to go overboard with options here. The
point of the exercise is to make current authz parsing a lot faster. If
we can get in some basic wildcard support that doesn't affect users who
do not use it, then fine; but confusing people with several different
pattern syntaxes is too much.
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco | Realising the impossibilities of Big Data
Received on 2014-07-29 13:06:13 CEST