On 23 Nov 2011, at 10:02 AM, Nick Kew wrote:

Wherein lies the problem.  How confusing is it to have r->remote_ip
and r->conn->remote_ip *and for them to be different*?

These need distinct names to distinguish them!
e.g. r->client_ip vs r->conn->remote_ip - obviously keep the latter!

We already have remote_ip exploded as remote_addr, and then we take remote_ip and put it into REMOTE_ADDR, adding yet another name to all of that will just add more confusion :(

Regards,
Graham
--

Reply via email to