On 3/15/07, Igor Sysoev <is-G...@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Thanks, I see. Are you willing to accept suggestions for syntax improvement? I ask because I've been working on documentation for nginx and, being a bit of a fanatic about clarity and simplicity, I have some ideas in that area. And well-chosen names can make a huge difference - like between instant recognition and an hour's worth of experimenting to find out what is really meant.

"limit_except" is a good example of a bad name. To be honest, I consider it an excellent candidate for the Atrocious Name Hall of Fame. We can blame Apache. ;) I can think of 50 different ways to express it better. I agree with you that "method" should probably be in the name. But there are other ways, too. I would get rid of "limit", for example; that's not the real meaning. In fact, in my opinion it's quite misleading; since I think of limits as having to do with bounds on something that wants to grow, I waste time thinking in the wrong direction when trying to understand it. But "limit_except" is just about authorization. One possibility is an authorization block:

authorization { // spelled out to avoid confusion with "authority" in e.g. a uri http-methods { //default: apply to all methods; spelled out to avoid name collisions ... exempt FOO BAR; // these are exempted from the rule } other-auth-directives... }