Re: Propose to polish the consistency of case sensitivity in configurations

Hi, Alex,

Ok, sure. As long as the rule of case sensitivity is consistent, I
think it's good and less confusing. Anyway, identifiers like file
paths, urls, hostnames are case sensitive.

So, I should make everything case sensitive by replacing the
strcasecmp-like string comparison to strcmp. Am I right?

Thanks,
Tianyin

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Alex Rousskov
<rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 01:49 AM, Tianyin Xu wrote:
>
>> 3. For configuration like A B=C, A and B should be sensitive while C
>> should be insensitive.
>
> The case sensitivity of squid.conf directive parameters (i.e., all the
> stuff that follows the directive name) depends on the directive. Many C
> values are case-sensitive (e.g., various locations). However, you should
> not see a lot of str*cmp() code applied to those values -- if that is
> how you plan locating code for planned consistency fixes.
>
>
> We can probably declare all known names such as directive names and
> directive parameter names case-insensitive. That would make their
> handling consistent and backward compatible. However, that "permissive"
> direction feels inconsistent with recent changes that, among other
> things, restricted the variation of "positive" keywords such as "on",
> "enabled", and "yes".
>
> Other than consistency with some existing options, I do not see value in
> making configuration names case-insensitive (unless required so by some
> communication protocol, of course). Variations in case just make configs
> messier IMO. If we were to start from scratch, I would argue that all
> known configuration names should be case sensitive.
>
> I find it interesting that squid.conf.documented does not document
> default case sensitivity. Perhaps we can use that to justify making
> everything sensitive by default? :-)
>
>
> HTH,
>
> Alex.
>

-- 
Tianyin XU,
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~tixu/