> No, it would not concatenate the headers, otherwise it breaks > set-cookie. For simple headers like above, you'd get the same > result with modify-header and replace-header. The difference > is visible when the header contains a comma : > > Set-Cookie: A=B; expires=Wed, 21 May 2014 05:11:16 GMT > Set-Cookie: C=D; expires=Wed, 21 May 2014 05:11:16 GMT > > replace-header Set-Cookie (.*) \1;bar would give : > > Set-Cookie: A=B; expires=Wed, 21 May 2014 05:11:16 GMT; bar > Set-Cookie: C=D; expires=Wed, 21 May 2014 05:11:16 GMT; bar > > modify-header Set-Cookie (.*) \1;bar would give : > > Set-Cookie: A=B; expires=Wed; bar, 21 May 2014 05:11:16 GMT; bar > Set-Cookie: C=D; expires=Wed; bar, 21 May 2014 05:11:16 GMT; bar > > Maybe the names are not the best choices, I don't know. At least I > tend to remember which one does what this way.
Good plan. Will do it this way. If I use buffer_replace2() on the header repeatedly from under http_res_get_intercept_rule() or http_req_get_intercept_rule() it does not appear that it would cause any problems - It is already being used from under http_remove_header2() which is called from under those functions, but maybe I missed something. Did I? And, is buffer_replace2() the best tool for the job, or would you suggest a different call? -- Sasha Pachev Fast Running Blog. http://fastrunningblog.com Run. Blog. Improve. Repeat.
