On 2 Sep 2008, at 9:58 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>> Basically if you add additional config directive it cannot be
>> backported.
>
> Cannot isn't quite fair... it simply makes it less likely to be
> accepted. Essentially you ask yourself, is this fixing a bug or
> problem with 2.2, or is it a new feature that should be added and
> instead of distracting the devs from releasing 2.4.0, should the
> emphasis be on getting the new version released?
OK, it sounds like I should give up on the 2.2 backport anyway, which
is fine. (It's easy enough for me to backport and apply locally if I
need it.) And in that case, there's no rush on this feature, so the
devs can decide their own priorities regarding 2.4.0.
I would like to write something that others can/will use, if possible.
On 2 Sep 2008, at 9:34 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Anyhow I agree with Nick that using existing directives from
> mod_rewrite or mod_headers would be much nicer solution, so I'm not
> in favor of adding new directives.
Do you like the idea of proxying the entire subprocess_env table, or
have another suggestion? Personally, I'd like to avoid loading
mod_rewrite in my environment, and a long list of these is neither
efficient nor pleasant to maintain:
RewriteRule ^ - [C,E=AJP_REMOTE_USER:%{ENV:REMOTE_USER}]
I don't see a way to extend mod_headers for this, but I might be
missing something.
(Also, for my own understanding, what are the primary concerns about
new directives? Namespace pollution?)
--
Ian Ward Comfort <icomfort@rescomp.stanford.edu>
System Administrator, Student Computing, Stanford University
|