On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:53:24 -0700 Ian Ward Comfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My environment is affected by bug 40047, the lack of a mod_proxy_ajp > equivalent to mod_jk's JkEnvVar directive. (The mod_rewrite > gyrations required to work around this with AJP_* vars are too > unpleasant to maintain.) If I write a patch for this feature, might > it stand a chance of upstream inclusion? If so, thoughts on the > following would be appreciated. > > * The directive should probably be handled by mod_proxy. It may be > relevant to protocols besides AJP, and mod_proxy already has > configuration objects, unlike mod_proxy_ajp. > > * A lot of the code can probably be reused from mod_jk, unless > anyone foresees a problem with this. > > * What's an appropriate name for the directive -- ProxyEnvVar? How big is this proposed patch? A patch that can be reviewed in five minutes has a lower barrier to inclusion than one that a developer has to spend all day reviewing :-) Anyway, as an alternative to your proposal, would it fix your problem if variables set using SetEnv or PassEnv - or dynamically using mod_rewrite - were propagated to the backend appserver? If so, I'd think that a nicer solution than a new directive. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
