On 4 Sep 2008, at 2:54 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
But if we're talking about the backend's env, then (optionally)
inheriting it from the proxy seems to me to make semantic sense.
There is a logic to that strategy. I for one rarely need the whole
environment forwarded, and would probably rather not take the
performance hit for the sake of logic. (Reality interferes with clean
design again.)
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 02:00:47 -0700 Ian Ward Comfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
To me, 'ProxyEnvVar REMOTE_USER' is succinct and effective.
I'd say quite the reverse! REMOTE_USER is not normally an env var.
It only becomes one if a consumer of the CGI env is in operation.
In the case of a proxy, that means mod_rewrite, mod_include, or
third-party module. That'll truly confuse the users!
A poorly chosen example, then -- let's say 'ProxyEnvVar
WEBAUTH_LDAP_DISPLAYNAME'. (I meant only that a ProxyEnvVar directive
made sense to me.)
But if new directives are anathema, I'm willing to implement a
different interface, if a suitable one can be found.
There isn't a problem with new directives. I merely suggested an
alternative that I think makes sense in this instance. Evidently
not everyone agrees. Bottom line: if you're doing the work, then
you decide what approach you prefer.
Fair enough. I'll keep an open mind in case a better suggestion
appears, and otherwise do something that works here.
--
Ian Ward Comfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
System Administrator, Student Computing, Stanford University
