On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/12/2010 2:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> On Jul 11, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM,<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Author: niq >>>> Date: Thu Apr 1 22:48:38 2010 >>>> New Revision: 930125 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=930125&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Proxy balancer: support setting error status according to >>>> HTTP response code from a backend. >>>> PR 48939 [Daniel Ruggeri<DRuggeri primary.net>] >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> + else if (!strcasecmp(key, "erroronstatus")) { >>>> >>> >>> Any opinions on "erroronstatus"? It doesn't feel quite right to me, >>> but I'm not confident about a replacement. >>> >>> Just plain "errorstatus" or "errorstatuscodes"? >>> >>> If normal response handling takes the same action on other status >>> codes (I dunno), maybe "extraerrorstatus" or "extraerrorstatuscodes" >>> would be bettter? >>> >>> >> >> proxyseterror? >> >> >> > > If erroronstatus is right out, I like errorstatuscodes best as a > replacement. > > Jeff; > I will gladly take the tasks you mentioned in STATUS as soon as we have > consensus on the name of the directive. It may be a lofty goal but it would > be great if this could make it into 2.2.16.
We may as well leave it at "erroronstatus" I agree with Eric on keeping your original choice and worrying about the doc.
