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).
