On Aug 23, 2007, at 7:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 8/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm happy with a number of alternative names, mod_pcre_filter,
mod_text_filter,
mod_subst_filter, whatever, a number come to mind. The fact is,
mod_sed_filter
was nothing close to a sed implementation.
I hate "mod_rewrite_filter". That's just asking for confusion with
mod_rewrite. I prefer any of the above suggestions. (But then again,
I'm not planning to make the change myself, so feel free to ignore
me.)
That was my thought as well -- it is hard enough to document
mod_rewrite already.
I changed it, I'll be happy (urp) to change it again
[ ] mod_pcre_filter
[ ] mod_text_filter
[ ] mod_subst_filter
[ ] mod_rewrite_filter
My vote is the last one. Here's my thought...
mod_subst_filter, or mod_substitute, or mod_regex_replace, or ...
...I believe we should extend the module to also accept env
replacements
from the current request. Sure, it's not there yet, but with that
feature,
it maps to rewrite more closely than most anything.
And that's a good thing? Modules are supposed to be, well, modular.
....Roy
