Am 01.11.19 um 14:24 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>
>
> Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 11:26, Felix Schumacher
> <felix.schumacher@internetallee.de
> <mailto: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.
I have submitted a PR that tries to implement the discussed features:
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/221
Felix
>
>
> 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>
>>>
|