On 2012-09-25 17:38, Florian Anderiasch wrote: > 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?
Any client can create an x-*** header and send it to the server. How do you know it was set by Mongrel2 or by the client? loïc
