Can you expand on the problem here? The stated point of this CL runs in direct opposition to the design ethos of ProxyingContentRewriter w/ concat + proxy together.
The point of doing it the way it exists is to avoid concatenation and proxying stepping over one another - ie. proxying an already-concatenated URI or vice versa. If the idea is independent configurability, would it work just offer an option in the existing ProxyingContentRewriter to disable the concatenation piece (and/or vice versa)? Your test cases could be used essentially verbatim for this case. Best, John On 2010/07/18 04:50:10, gagan.goku wrote:
On 2010/07/18 04:43:41, anupama.dutta wrote: > LGTM.
thanks :)
http://codereview.appspot.com/1711053/show
