On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:08:55 -0400 "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:04:19 +0100 > > Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I agree that the intended behaviour of the original code was > > > intuitively correct, only >= 400 errors should be overriden, > > > > A redirection page is likely to include a redirected URL. > > In a reverse proxy situation, that may need to be rewritten. > > Use of ProxyErrorOverride could be a valid alternative to > > mod_proxy_html in that situation, couldn't it? > > > > Looks to me like a valid usage case for ProxyErrorOverride 3xx. > > We have a couple of people trying to make their actual problem go away > permanently by keeping up with this thread and trying to match > developer comments with patches. Yep. > IMO we should go ahead and fix what is broken now, and let > requirements for the new feature (ProxyErrorOverride nxx) present > themselves in the fullness of time. If somebody is relying on the > current feature-by-defect, then we'll find out soon enough. If there > is never a compelling requirement, then we're left with the simpler > code (which is already hard enough to keep working ;) ). Fine by me. I was ready to commit a give-the-users-the-choice patch, then someone objected to it. If you want to commit the no-choice patch instead, that's OK. Either way, it'll want an accompanying documentation patch before it goes into a release. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
