> 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.ech...@credit-suisse.com] > Sent: 30 November 2010 17:55 > To: users@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
