Re: [PATCH] port of http_access2 from 2.6

On 01/19/2010 07:16 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> I think this is right. Anyone able to double-check me though?

Should the documentation mention that redirects are performed before the
second access check?

I am not a big fan of fooN names. Is using something more specific like
post_adaptation_access be better long-term?

Is this going to conflict with the "log virgin HTTP request headers"
patch already under review?

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Wed Jan 20 2010 - 16:58:06 MST