Webware for Python

At 03:28 PM 12/21/01 -0500, Edmund Lian wrote:
> >>Actually, it appears that ExtensionsToServe rather overlaps with
>FilesToServe and FilesToIgnore. Is there some subtle difference between
>these settings?<<
>
>Hmmm... I think that in general, I don't understand the differences between
>ExtensionsToServer, ExtensionsToIgnore, FilesToServe and FilesToHide...
>
>...Edmund.

The Extensions* settings only affect requests where you left off the extension.

The Files* settings affect all requests, with or without the extension as 
part of the URL.


--

- Geoff Talvola
   gtalvola@...

Tavis wrote:

>>Does that help?<<

Yes, enormously. Thank you...

...Edmund.

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:28:57PM -0500, Edmund Lian wrote:
> >>Actually, it appears that ExtensionsToServe rather overlaps with
> FilesToServe and FilesToIgnore. Is there some subtle difference between
> these settings?<<
> 
> Hmmm... I think that in general, I don't understand the differences between
> ExtensionsToServer, ExtensionsToIgnore, FilesToServe and FilesToHide...

It's more a case of earlier criteria being inadequate so later ones were
added, but the old keywords remain for backward compatibility.
Tavis' WebwareXP has a redesigned version of this that supposedly allows
you to specify a prioritized list of extensions to serve while
simultaneously guaranteeing that anything without those extensions will
not be visible.  

-- 
-Mike (Iron) Orr, iron@...  (if mail problems: mso@...)
   http://iron.cx/     English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:36:36PM -0800, Mike Orr wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:28:57PM -0500, Edmund Lian wrote:
> > Hmmm... I think that in general, I don't understand the differences between
> > ExtensionsToServer, ExtensionsToIgnore, FilesToServe and FilesToHide...
> 
> It's more a case of earlier criteria being inadequate so later ones were
> added, but the old keywords remain for backward compatibility.

In particular, it used to only be ExtensionsToIgnore.  That caused
problems when ppl didn't realize all the backup extensions that might
be created.  

If security is paramount, the *Serve options are safer.  The only
disadvantage is that you must list all your "other" extensions
(.png, .ram, .txt, whatever Shockwave's is, etc), and if you or your
user adds another multimedia type, you have to remember to update the
option.  I think that's better than accidentally allowing ~, .bak,
etc to leak through, but if you're running a multiuser site and want
to give your users flexibility in setting up there web sites, it may
not be practical.

-- 
-Mike (Iron) Orr, iron@...  (if mail problems: mso@...)
   http://iron.cx/     English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol