RE: uri_map using regex [WAS: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces]

st 10, 2002 2:04 AM > > To: Tomcat Dev List > > Subject: Re: uri_map using regex [WAS: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces] > > > > > > Doesn't mod_rewrite do what you want here? In combination > > with mod_proxy, it can rewrite URL to URL as well, so you can >

RE: uri_map using regex [WAS: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces]

> -Original Message- > From: Bojan Smojver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:04 AM > To: Tomcat Dev List > Subject: Re: uri_map using regex [WAS: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces] > > > Doesn't mod_rewrite do what you want here? In

Re: uri_map using regex [WAS: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces]

Doesn't mod_rewrite do what you want here? In combination with mod_proxy, it can rewrite URL to URL as well, so you can get the resulting URL back in mod_jk and then just use normal mappings. Or maybe I'm on a totally wrong track here... As for IIS, dunno, don't care ;-) Bojan On Fri, 2002-08-0

RE: uri_map using regex [WAS: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces]

> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Costin Manolache > > I thought about this few times - it's a good idea but a bit > scary ( the build process ) The easiest would be if the guys from Apache 2 move the regex to the apr-util (I already make the question about that on the apr-

Re: uri_map using regex [WAS: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces]

I thought about this few times - it's a good idea but a bit scary ( the build process ), and not sure if a general regexp will work as well on the simple patterns we have. On the other side most regexp impl. use finite machines and many optimizations - so they may be much faster. I'm +1 if you

uri_map using regex [WAS: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces]

Hi, Remember the last month advanced URI space resolution I proposed? Well, I've been working on that for a week or so, and found myself doing things that are more or less regular expression matching of request uri. Even existing uri_map code has a trace of that (matching star for example), so I

RE: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces

Cool! Bojan Quoting Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > -Original Message- > > From: Bojan Smojver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:00 AM > > To: Tomcat Dev List > > Subject: RE: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces >

RE: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces

> -Original Message- > From: Bojan Smojver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:00 AM > To: Tomcat Dev List > Subject: RE: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces > > This above sentence is confusing. You probably meant > configuration option

RE: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces

On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 23:55, Mladen Turk wrote: > > Now I propose that we make something like _not_ URI space > > filtering. Meaning that one could be able to serve every > > .html file through TC except for the /*/some_space/ location. > > Right now we are checking and hoping that the TC will

RE: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Mladen Turk wrote: > > Now I propose that we make something like _not_ URI space > > filtering. Meaning that one could be able to serve every > > .html file through TC except for the /*/some_space/ location. > > Right now we are checking and hoping that the TC will accept

RE: mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces

> Now I propose that we make something like _not_ URI space > filtering. Meaning that one could be able to serve every > .html file through TC except for the /*/some_space/ location. > Right now we are checking and hoping that the TC will accept > the context, and then we forget that immediate

mod_jk, mod_jk2 URI spaces

Hi, Just been working for a week on a real-life TC-mod_jk situation, and found some interesting limitations (well, point of views to the concept). What are we doing right now is 'favoring' TC over Apache URI resolving, meaning that if we set something like /*.html, then all the .html context wil