Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
So, now is the right moment to break things, propose new ideas, and
suggest changes in Cherokee. If you have any idea, do not hesitate
to send it to the list.
there is always my ever popular request for handling the pound style
referrer information so that the downstream server can know where the
request really came from.
Promise and proof that the proxy will never ever ever (ever) be able to
refer to port 25 outbound. You probably should also include 587
(submission) as well http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2476.txt
The ability to combine handlers could be very useful. For example the
combined handler (file, directory) could be split out into its original
handlers if you had the ability that if one fails, the next one in the
chain is tried. I don't believe there will be many chains longer than
two or three elements but when you need them, it's really useful.
as a completely made-up example, imagine a chain of file, rewrite, file,
error message. If the first file request fails, rewrite the URL, try
the second file request, and if that fails display an error message.
redirecting standard error to syslog.
improved error reporting.
what file path does a request translate to?
either report configuration errors by file name and line number
or reassemble all the configuration data so that one can find the
reported file number
or display a window of text around the configuration file error (i.e.
plus or -10 lines.
I'll have to take some time and think of more. ;-)
---eric
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.0x50.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
