On Mon, 07 May 2007 09:15:09 -0500
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> I'm moving from from a -.9 to a -1 of trunk on this because altering
> the semantics of ALL of the existing ProxyPass[Reverse] directives in
> one misplaced or poorly understood directive seems highly hazardous.
>
> On any server with more than one administrator, this can be very toxic
> and cause all sorts of ill will as Joe turns on the directive,
> breaking James' mappings. Similar issues occur when ProxyPass
> directives are scattered throughout many .conf'lets.
The likelihood of anything breaking in an existing config seems
negligible, as the syntax for variable interpolation won't figure
in a literal URL-matching pattern (the syntax is ${var}).
AFAICS it would be perfectly safe to enable interpolation
automatically, without a directive. The reason for doing so is
performance: enabling interpolation incurs an overhead of making
per-request copies of configuration stuff.
> Can this please be reverted, and replace if you like with a second set
> of unambiguous ProxyPassEnv[Reverse|CookieDomain|CookiePath]
> directives which triggers honoring the env var interpolation on a
> per-mapping basis?
That's a lot of extra complexity. A little in the code and
configuration, but a lot in the documentation. The sheer length
of some of our documents (including the proxy's) is already a
hurdle for users getting to grips with it.
Any chance you could outline an example to explain how my patch
would break something?
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
