Re: RewriteMap parsing

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hi Felix

Overall it looks good but I'd do two minor changes:

1. Only lookup providers once per context (ServiceLoader result being
cached per parser instance)
2. Likely lazy load the parsing after context startup to ensure ioc can be
used (spring web or cdi lookups)

Hope it makes sense

Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 18:31, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> a écrit :

>
> Am 01.11.19 um 14:24 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 11:26, Felix Schumacher <
> felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> a écrit :
>
>>
>> Am 01.11.19 um 11:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>>
>> Through the spi IMHO and if it can be ambiguous use an ordinal or
>> priority to let it be overriden maybe?
>>
>> Do we want users to be able to overwrite our functions? Is the "int:"
>> namespace free for everyone?
>>
> I think so, like enabling to enrich it (often implemented as a delegation)
>
>
>
> Should we break the context startup in case of duplicate functions in the
>> registry?
>>
>
> If they have the same priority I think so.
>
>
> I have submitted a PR that tries to implement the discussed features:
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/221
>
> Felix
>
>
>
> Felix
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 10:46, Felix Schumacher <
>> felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Am 28.10.19 um 23:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>>>
>>> +1 for quotes
>>>
>>> Can the "function" support be pluggable either with an explicit registry
>>> or a SPI? Would be awesome to enrich it in "super tomcat" instances
>>> (thinking to meecrowave, tomee and maybe spring boot).
>>>
>>> The function support is already pluggable (by the configuration file :),
>>> but I thought about adding SPI.
>>>
>>> It is unclear to me, how to determine the namespace ("int:" in the httpd
>>> example), should it be given by the Service Provider? Would "int" be
>>> reserved for our own functions? How could we achieve such a reservation
>>> mechnism?
>>>
>>> Felix
>>>
>>>
>>> Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 21:43, Mark Thomas  a écrit :
>>>


 On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote:
 > Hi all,
 >
 > while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I noticed, that parsing
 > of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. Parameters are split at
 > whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the first of the
 > optional parameters will be used.
 >
 > Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce quoting
 capabilities
 > to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow multiple parameters?
 >
 > Version "quote":
 >
 > RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"
 >
 > Version "multiple"
 >
 > RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three
 >
 > Or should it be a combination?

 That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean towards this option
 but would be happy to support the majority view if different.

 > "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current interface, as we
 > still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a nicer interface
 for
 > the implementer of the map.
 >
 > Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map feature has a
 few
 > builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our implementation.
 > Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
 > int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and possibly a new
 one
 > called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with placeholder}. For
 > these elements a quote detection would be a must)

 I don't recall any requests for these on the users list but maybe that
 is because the feature isn't that well known.

 Mark


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org

Re: RewriteMap parsing

[Felix Schumacher]

Am 01.11.19 um 14:24 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>
>
> Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 11:26, Felix Schumacher
>  > a écrit :
>
>
> Am 01.11.19 um 11:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>> Through the spi IMHO and if it can be ambiguous use an ordinal or
>> priority to let it be overriden maybe?
>
> Do we want users to be able to overwrite our functions? Is the
> "int:" namespace free for everyone?
>
> I think so, like enabling to enrich it (often implemented as a delegation)
>
>
>
> Should we break the context startup in case of duplicate functions
> in the registry?
>
>
> If they have the same priority I think so.


I have submitted a PR that tries to implement the discussed features:
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/221

Felix

>
>
> Felix
>
>>
>> Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 10:46, Felix Schumacher
>> > > a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Am 28.10.19 um 23:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>>> +1 for quotes
>>>
>>> Can the "function" support be pluggable either with an
>>> explicit registry or a SPI? Would be awesome to enrich it in
>>> "super tomcat" instances (thinking to meecrowave, tomee and
>>> maybe spring boot).
>>
>> The function support is already pluggable (by the
>> configuration file :), but I thought about adding SPI.
>>
>> It is unclear to me, how to determine the namespace ("int:"
>> in the httpd example), should it be given by the Service
>> Provider? Would "int" be reserved for our own functions? How
>> could we achieve such a reservation mechnism?
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>>
>>> Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 21:43, Mark Thomas >> > a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I
>>> noticed, that parsing
>>> > of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal.
>>> Parameters are split at
>>> > whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the
>>> first of the
>>> > optional parameters will be used.
>>> >
>>> > Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce
>>> quoting capabilities
>>> > to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow
>>> multiple parameters?
>>> >
>>> > Version "quote":
>>> >
>>> > RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"
>>> >
>>> > Version "multiple"
>>> >
>>> > RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three
>>> >
>>> > Or should it be a combination?
>>>
>>> That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean
>>> towards this option
>>> but would be happy to support the majority view if
>>> different.
>>>
>>> > "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current
>>> interface, as we
>>> > still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a
>>> nicer interface for
>>> > the implementer of the map.
>>> >
>>> > Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map
>>> feature has a few
>>> > builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our
>>> implementation.
>>> > Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
>>> > int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and
>>> possibly a new one
>>> > called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with
>>> placeholder}. For
>>> > these elements a quote detection would be a must)
>>>
>>> I don't recall any requests for these on the users list
>>> but maybe that
>>> is because the feature isn't that well known.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
>>> 
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>>> 
>>>

Re: RewriteMap parsing

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 11:26, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> a écrit :

>
> Am 01.11.19 um 11:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>
> Through the spi IMHO and if it can be ambiguous use an ordinal or priority
> to let it be overriden maybe?
>
> Do we want users to be able to overwrite our functions? Is the "int:"
> namespace free for everyone?
>
I think so, like enabling to enrich it (often implemented as a delegation)



Should we break the context startup in case of duplicate functions in the
> registry?
>

If they have the same priority I think so.


Felix
>
>
> Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 10:46, Felix Schumacher <
> felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> a écrit :
>
>>
>> Am 28.10.19 um 23:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>>
>> +1 for quotes
>>
>> Can the "function" support be pluggable either with an explicit registry
>> or a SPI? Would be awesome to enrich it in "super tomcat" instances
>> (thinking to meecrowave, tomee and maybe spring boot).
>>
>> The function support is already pluggable (by the configuration file :),
>> but I thought about adding SPI.
>>
>> It is unclear to me, how to determine the namespace ("int:" in the httpd
>> example), should it be given by the Service Provider? Would "int" be
>> reserved for our own functions? How could we achieve such a reservation
>> mechnism?
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>> Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 21:43, Mark Thomas  a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I noticed, that parsing
>>> > of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. Parameters are split at
>>> > whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the first of the
>>> > optional parameters will be used.
>>> >
>>> > Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce quoting capabilities
>>> > to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow multiple parameters?
>>> >
>>> > Version "quote":
>>> >
>>> > RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"
>>> >
>>> > Version "multiple"
>>> >
>>> > RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three
>>> >
>>> > Or should it be a combination?
>>>
>>> That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean towards this option
>>> but would be happy to support the majority view if different.
>>>
>>> > "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current interface, as we
>>> > still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a nicer interface
>>> for
>>> > the implementer of the map.
>>> >
>>> > Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map feature has a
>>> few
>>> > builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our implementation.
>>> > Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
>>> > int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and possibly a new
>>> one
>>> > called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with placeholder}. For
>>> > these elements a quote detection would be a must)
>>>
>>> I don't recall any requests for these on the users list but maybe that
>>> is because the feature isn't that well known.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>>>
>>>

Re: RewriteMap parsing

[Felix Schumacher]

Am 01.11.19 um 11:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> Through the spi IMHO and if it can be ambiguous use an ordinal or
> priority to let it be overriden maybe?

Do we want users to be able to overwrite our functions? Is the "int:"
namespace free for everyone?

Should we break the context startup in case of duplicate functions in
the registry?

Felix

>
> Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 10:46, Felix Schumacher
>  > a écrit :
>
>
> Am 28.10.19 um 23:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>> +1 for quotes
>>
>> Can the "function" support be pluggable either with an explicit
>> registry or a SPI? Would be awesome to enrich it in "super
>> tomcat" instances (thinking to meecrowave, tomee and maybe spring
>> boot).
>
> The function support is already pluggable (by the configuration
> file :), but I thought about adding SPI.
>
> It is unclear to me, how to determine the namespace ("int:" in the
> httpd example), should it be given by the Service Provider? Would
> "int" be reserved for our own functions? How could we achieve such
> a reservation mechnism?
>
> Felix
>
>>
>> Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 21:43, Mark Thomas > > a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I noticed,
>> that parsing
>> > of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. Parameters
>> are split at
>> > whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the
>> first of the
>> > optional parameters will be used.
>> >
>> > Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce quoting
>> capabilities
>> > to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow multiple
>> parameters?
>> >
>> > Version "quote":
>> >
>> > RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"
>> >
>> > Version "multiple"
>> >
>> > RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three
>> >
>> > Or should it be a combination?
>>
>> That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean towards
>> this option
>> but would be happy to support the majority view if different.
>>
>> > "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current
>> interface, as we
>> > still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a nicer
>> interface for
>> > the implementer of the map.
>> >
>> > Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map
>> feature has a few
>> > builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our
>> implementation.
>> > Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
>> > int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and
>> possibly a new one
>> > called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with
>> placeholder}. For
>> > these elements a quote detection would be a must)
>>
>> I don't recall any requests for these on the users list but
>> maybe that
>> is because the feature isn't that well known.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
>> 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>> 
>>

Re: RewriteMap parsing

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Through the spi IMHO and if it can be ambiguous use an ordinal or priority
to let it be overriden maybe?

Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 10:46, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> a écrit :

>
> Am 28.10.19 um 23:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>
> +1 for quotes
>
> Can the "function" support be pluggable either with an explicit registry
> or a SPI? Would be awesome to enrich it in "super tomcat" instances
> (thinking to meecrowave, tomee and maybe spring boot).
>
> The function support is already pluggable (by the configuration file :),
> but I thought about adding SPI.
>
> It is unclear to me, how to determine the namespace ("int:" in the httpd
> example), should it be given by the Service Provider? Would "int" be
> reserved for our own functions? How could we achieve such a reservation
> mechnism?
>
> Felix
>
>
> Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 21:43, Mark Thomas  a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I noticed, that parsing
>> > of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. Parameters are split at
>> > whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the first of the
>> > optional parameters will be used.
>> >
>> > Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce quoting capabilities
>> > to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow multiple parameters?
>> >
>> > Version "quote":
>> >
>> > RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"
>> >
>> > Version "multiple"
>> >
>> > RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three
>> >
>> > Or should it be a combination?
>>
>> That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean towards this option
>> but would be happy to support the majority view if different.
>>
>> > "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current interface, as we
>> > still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a nicer interface for
>> > the implementer of the map.
>> >
>> > Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map feature has a few
>> > builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our implementation.
>> > Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
>> > int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and possibly a new one
>> > called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with placeholder}. For
>> > these elements a quote detection would be a must)
>>
>> I don't recall any requests for these on the users list but maybe that
>> is because the feature isn't that well known.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: RewriteMap parsing

[Felix Schumacher]

Am 28.10.19 um 23:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> +1 for quotes
>
> Can the "function" support be pluggable either with an explicit
> registry or a SPI? Would be awesome to enrich it in "super tomcat"
> instances (thinking to meecrowave, tomee and maybe spring boot).

The function support is already pluggable (by the configuration file :),
but I thought about adding SPI.

It is unclear to me, how to determine the namespace ("int:" in the httpd
example), should it be given by the Service Provider? Would "int" be
reserved for our own functions? How could we achieve such a reservation
mechnism?

Felix

>
> Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 21:43, Mark Thomas  > a écrit :
>
>
>
> On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I noticed, that
> parsing
> > of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. Parameters are
> split at
> > whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the first of the
> > optional parameters will be used.
> >
> > Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce quoting
> capabilities
> > to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow multiple
> parameters?
> >
> > Version "quote":
> >
> > RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"
> >
> > Version "multiple"
> >
> > RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three
> >
> > Or should it be a combination?
>
> That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean towards this
> option
> but would be happy to support the majority view if different.
>
> > "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current interface,
> as we
> > still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a nicer
> interface for
> > the implementer of the map.
> >
> > Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map feature
> has a few
> > builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our
> implementation.
> > Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
> > int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and possibly a
> new one
> > called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with placeholder}. For
> > these elements a quote detection would be a must)
>
> I don't recall any requests for these on the users list but maybe that
> is because the feature isn't that well known.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
> 
>

Re: RewriteMap parsing

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

+1 for quotes

Can the "function" support be pluggable either with an explicit registry or
a SPI? Would be awesome to enrich it in "super tomcat" instances (thinking
to meecrowave, tomee and maybe spring boot).

Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 21:43, Mark Thomas  a écrit :

>
>
> On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I noticed, that parsing
> > of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. Parameters are split at
> > whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the first of the
> > optional parameters will be used.
> >
> > Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce quoting capabilities
> > to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow multiple parameters?
> >
> > Version "quote":
> >
> > RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"
> >
> > Version "multiple"
> >
> > RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three
> >
> > Or should it be a combination?
>
> That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean towards this option
> but would be happy to support the majority view if different.
>
> > "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current interface, as we
> > still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a nicer interface for
> > the implementer of the map.
> >
> > Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map feature has a few
> > builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our implementation.
> > Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
> > int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and possibly a new one
> > called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with placeholder}. For
> > these elements a quote detection would be a must)
>
> I don't recall any requests for these on the users list but maybe that
> is because the feature isn't that well known.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Re: RewriteMap parsing

[Mark Thomas]

On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I noticed, that parsing
> of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. Parameters are split at
> whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the first of the
> optional parameters will be used.
> 
> Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce quoting capabilities
> to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow multiple parameters?
> 
> Version "quote":
> 
> RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"
> 
> Version "multiple"
> 
> RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three
> 
> Or should it be a combination?

That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean towards this option
but would be happy to support the majority view if different.

> "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current interface, as we
> still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a nicer interface for
> the implementer of the map.
> 
> Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map feature has a few
> builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our implementation.
> Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
> int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and possibly a new one
> called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with placeholder}. For
> these elements a quote detection would be a must)

I don't recall any requests for these on the users list but maybe that
is because the feature isn't that well known.

Mark


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org

RewriteMap parsing

[Felix Schumacher]

Hi all,

while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I noticed, that parsing
of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. Parameters are split at
whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the first of the
optional parameters will be used.

Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce quoting capabilities
to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow multiple parameters?

Version "quote":

RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params"

Version "multiple"

RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three

Or should it be a combination?

"quote" would be sort of compatible with the current interface, as we
still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a nicer interface for
the implementer of the map.


Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map feature has a few
builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our implementation.
Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps
int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and possibly a new one
called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with placeholder}. For
these elements a quote detection would be a must)

Felix


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org