Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 17839 invoked by uid 500); 12 Apr 2000 04:15:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 17825 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2000 04:15:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:14:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Tregar X-Sender: sam@zoltar.vm.com To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Feature Proposal: ProxyRewriteHostHeader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Greg Stein wrote: > 1) yes, code is always better Ok then, I'll get on it. > 2) writing it against Apache 2.0 stands a *much* better chance of the > patch being integrated (probably without question). writing it against > 1.3 will need a much higher bar... I guess I'll see about doing both. Since I plan to use this in a current project I'd need something working in 1.3. Perhaps that would be a "private" patch though - I can understand wanting to put new features into 2.0 alone. > That said, I'm ambivalent (leaning towards no) since I don't think we > should really be involved in proxy-anything. Really? Is mod_proxy in danger of being canned? That's pretty shocking to hear - it's a very useful module. Do you mean that it should be moved out of the core distribution or abandoned entirely? Would you mind explaining your position a little more fully? -sam