On 09/25/2012 09:37 AM, Loic d'Anterroches wrote: > Hello, > > On 2012-09-24 23:43, Jason Miller wrote: >> Hmm, I'm not sure why that's superior to not just putting the data in a >> netstring? > > I suppose I was not clear enough. Basically, I want to be able to > exchange "meta" data with Mongrel2. We have this issue with the headers > (remote ip, etc.) when the message is coming from M2 to the handler and > from the handler to M2 we only have the client list and the payload. > What I think could be nice is to have on top of these, a tnetstring or > json with some extra meta data. These extra data should be in a > different tnetstring/json "part" to be clear that you cannot overlap > them with the headers from the client. This way one have the "trusted" > meta data coming from M2 directly and the headers + optional body of the > request from the client.
Can't you just work with the old X-*** headers or am I missing the problem completely? Cheers, Florian
