Jim Jagielski
Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:22:17 -0700
On Aug 28, 2008, at 6:15 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:53:24 -0700 Ian Ward Comfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:My environment is affected by bug 40047, the lack of a mod_proxy_ajp equivalent to mod_jk's JkEnvVar directive. (The mod_rewrite gyrations required to work around this with AJP_* vars are too unpleasant to maintain.) If I write a patch for this feature, might it stand a chance of upstream inclusion? If so, thoughts on the following would be appreciated. * The directive should probably be handled by mod_proxy. It may be relevant to protocols besides AJP, and mod_proxy already has configuration objects, unlike mod_proxy_ajp. * A lot of the code can probably be reused from mod_jk, unless anyone foresees a problem with this. * What's an appropriate name for the directive -- ProxyEnvVar?How big is this proposed patch? A patch that can be reviewed in five minutes has a lower barrier to inclusion than one that a developer has to spend all day reviewing :-) Anyway, as an alternative to your proposal, would it fix your problem if variables set using SetEnv or PassEnv - or dynamically using mod_rewrite - were propagated to the backend appserver? If so, I'd think that a nicer solution than a new directive.
I think we would want some sort of control over which vars are and aren't passed back, so I don't see how we could get around not having another set of directives (unless we do something hankie like PassEnv & FOO_HOO_BOO_HOO where the '&' means all envars after the '&' should get passed thru)... Even so, this seem more an enhancement for mod_env than mod_proxy (although mod_proxy would be the prime user :) ) But, this means, afaict with a quick glance, that some minor API bumps would be needed (at least) so maybe doing it in mod_proxy would be an easier pill to swallow (esp for anything hoped to be backported to 2.2).