Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:15:30 +0100
From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding full environment variable support to mod_proxy_ajp
Message-ID: <20080828111530.2525c3e7@grimnir>
In-Reply-To: <51223235-2972-4430-A47E-A0BC29DD86FF@rescomp.stanford.edu>
References: <51223235-2972-4430-A47E-A0BC29DD86FF@rescomp.stanford.edu>
Organization: WebThing
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:53:24 -0700
Ian Ward Comfort <icomfort@rescomp.stanford.edu> wrote:

> My environment is affected by bug 40047, the lack of a mod_proxy_ajp  
> equivalent to mod_jk's JkEnvVar directive.  (The mod_rewrite
> gyrations required to work around this with AJP_* vars are too
> unpleasant to maintain.)  If I write a patch for this feature, might
> it stand a chance of upstream inclusion?  If so, thoughts on the
> following would be appreciated.
> 
> * The directive should probably be handled by mod_proxy.  It may be  
> relevant to protocols besides AJP, and mod_proxy already has  
> configuration objects, unlike mod_proxy_ajp.
> 
> * A lot of the code can probably be reused from mod_jk, unless
> anyone foresees a problem with this.
> 
> * What's an appropriate name for the directive -- ProxyEnvVar?

How big is this proposed patch?  A patch that can be reviewed in
five minutes has a lower barrier to inclusion than one that a
developer has to spend all day reviewing :-)

Anyway, as an alternative to your proposal, would it fix your
problem if variables set using SetEnv or PassEnv - or dynamically
using mod_rewrite - were propagated to the backend appserver?
If so, I'd think that a nicer solution than a new directive.

-- 
Nick Kew

Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/