tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RewriteMap parsing
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:24:41 GMT
Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 11:26, Felix Schumacher <
felix.schumacher@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.schumacher@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 <markt@apache.org> 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-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>>
>>>

Mime
View raw message