tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Schumacher <felix.schumac...@internetallee.de>
Subject Re: RewriteMap parsing
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2019 10:20:24 GMT

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
> <felix.schumacher@internetallee.de
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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
>>         <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org>
>>         For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>         <mailto:dev-help@tomcat.apache.org>
>>

Mime
View raw message