Hi Daniel and Jim, I saw your comments in one of the last email thread about Daniel's new code change for mod_remoteip, and I have some questions for the doc about the naming of the new directive:
2016-12-30 19:20 GMT+01:00 <elu...@apache.org>: > Author: elukey > Date: Fri Dec 30 18:20:04 2016 > New Revision: 1776616 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1776616&view=rev > Log: > Documentation rebuild for mod_remoteip > > Modified: > httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_remoteip.html.en > httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_remoteip.xml.fr > httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_remoteip.xml.meta > > + using the <code class="directive"><a href="# > remoteipproxyprotocolenable">RemoteIPProxyProtocolEnable</a> > +<div class="directive-section"><h2><a name="RemoteIPProxyProtocol" > id="RemoteIPProxyProtocol">RemoteIPProxyProtocol</a> <a > name="remoteipproxyprotocol" id="remoteipproxyprotocol">Directive</a></h2> > > +<tr><th><a > href="directive-dict.html#Syntax">Syntax:</a></th><td><code>ProxyProtocol > On|Optional|Off</code></td></tr> In the above snippets I can see three different names: RemoteIPProxyProtocolEnable, RemoteIPProxyProtocol and ProxyProtocol. The new directive in the C code is called RemoteIPProxyProtocolEnable, but I can see new logs using also RemoteIPProxyProtocol (like "RemoteIPProxyProtocol: internal error: have data left over; "). I personally like a lot RemoteIPProxyProtocol (rather than RemoteIPProxyProtocolEnable that seems a bit heavy to read), but everything is fine as long as we use a single name, especially in the logs that admins will read :) I haven't checked the code in detail so I might say something completely irrelevant, just writing the first things that I noticed! Luca
