On 2 Sep 2008, at 9:58 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Basically if you add additional config directive it cannot be
backported.
Cannot isn't quite fair... it simply makes it less likely to be
accepted. Essentially you ask yourself, is this fixing a bug or
problem with 2.2, or is it a new feature that should be added and
instead of distracting the devs from releasing 2.4.0, should the
emphasis be on getting the new version released?
OK, it sounds like I should give up on the 2.2 backport anyway, which
is fine. (It's easy enough for me to backport and apply locally if I
need it.) And in that case, there's no rush on this feature, so the
devs can decide their own priorities regarding 2.4.0.
I would like to write something that others can/will use, if possible.
On 2 Sep 2008, at 9:34 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Anyhow I agree with Nick that using existing directives from
mod_rewrite or mod_headers would be much nicer solution, so I'm not
in favor of adding new directives.
Do you like the idea of proxying the entire subprocess_env table, or
have another suggestion? Personally, I'd like to avoid loading
mod_rewrite in my environment, and a long list of these is neither
efficient nor pleasant to maintain:
RewriteRule ^ - [C,E=AJP_REMOTE_USER:%{ENV:REMOTE_USER}]
I don't see a way to extend mod_headers for this, but I might be
missing something.
(Also, for my own understanding, what are the primary concerns about
new directives? Namespace pollution?)
--
Ian Ward Comfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
System Administrator, Student Computing, Stanford University
