On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:03:59 -0400 Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would almost make sense to have this as an API function... anyone have > issues if I make the required adjustments for that to happen? What's the scope of your proposed API function? The current http_proxy_canonenc, generalised to serve also for balancer_proxy_canonenc, ajp_proxy_canonenc, etc? If so, sounds good to me. The thought had crossed my mind, but is a definite Not Yet on my to-do list. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
