On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:58:01 -0700, Alex Rousskov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/19/2010 07:16 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> I think this is right. Anyone able to double-check me though? > > Should the documentation mention that redirects are performed before the > second access check?
I think so. That being one of the two differences between this and http_access. Or did you mean the cf.data.pre changes were not descriptive/clear enough? > > I am not a big fan of fooN names. Is using something more specific like > post_adaptation_access be better long-term? Does adapted_http_access seem clearer? Being that it's a variant of http_access, always done and only useful when checking for adapted things. > > Is this going to conflict with the "log virgin HTTP request headers" > patch already under review? I don't think so. It drops in later in the callbacks function, which is the only overlap AFAIK. Amos
