On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Mike Rumph <mike.ru...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hello Jeff, > > Thanks for your reply. > > > On 9/3/2013 6:58 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > Since the URL validation in apr_uri_parse() has been tightened in the > handling of the scheme portion of a URL, > >> I submitted a patch to httpd bug 55315 against the mod_proxy code in >> httpd trunk to handle the special case >> of interpolating a variable in the scheme portion of a URL. >> >> - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55315 >> >> > Do you know if it is practical to have the one magic path down to > ap_proxy_define_worker() munge the URI? I guess the problem is that > ap_proxy_define_worker() saves the parsed uri, and the caller (add_pass or > whatever it is) doesn't have access to that? > > > I take your point to be that the mod_proxy patch I submitted cannot be > applied to the branches, since it changes the API. > So I've submitted a new patch that is applied further up the stack in > add_pass() in mod_proxy.c. > That patch (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30799) is the one I'm considering, as it is the one that could solve the issue for 2.2.x (with a minor tweak) and 2.4.x (as-is), and I don't think the function API issue is the major concern. Instead, carrying the interpolation expression around in the worker scheme field separate from an interpolation flag seems to be the overriding issue. Dynamic determination of the scheme seems very useful and I don't know of another way to implement the same requirement, which is well illustrated by the now-broken config in the bug: ProxyPassInterpolateEnv On RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTPS} =off RewriteRule . - [E=protocol:http] RewriteCond %{HTTPS} =on RewriteRule . - [E=protocol:https] ProxyPass /my_app/ ${protocol}://1.2.3.4/my_app/ interpolate ProxyPassReverse /my_app/ ${protocol}://1.2.3.4/my_app/ interpolate Any alternate ideas for configuring something like that? Otherwise, any objections to patch 30799 (URL above)? > > It is interesting that my research seems to indicate that mod_proxy > interpolation was actually the first to be introduced into the code. > > I guess the order is this: > > 1. support for environment variables in the config > 2. mod_proxy interpolation > 3. core server starts complaining if you have something that looks like an > envvar reference that isn't resolved > > Is that what you mean? > > The double use of ${} is nasty. In the fullness of time, I think that > mod_proxy interpolation should support an additional syntax that doesn't > collide with the config-time processing. > > Yes, that is the point that I was trying to make. > > Thanks, > > Mike Rumph > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
