On 01/02/2008 07:04 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:56:23 -0500 >> Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email >>> on why he didn't like it... Until that's resolved, the SS >>> still exists (though with a caveat) >> >> In summary, I don't think that patch should spill outside mod_proxy_ftp. >> Putting it on the mod_proxy config, and hence involving changes to >> mod_proxy.h API and ap_mmn, seems like superfluous complexity/bloat. >> Especially when most mod_proxy users won't be requiring mod_proxy_ftp. >> >> But that's not a veto, just a -0. >> > > And a valid point...
So far we have not put any configuration directives into mod_proxy_* even if they are specifc to a mod_proxy_* module (AllowCONNECT comes to mind). I do not say that this is correct, but I created my patch based on this and this seems to me a broader discussion that IMHO should not prevent us from releasing. Regards Rüdiger
