Re: [PATCH] port of http_access2 from 2.6

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:58:01 -0700, Alex Rousskov
<rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> 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 think so. That being one of the two differences between this and
http_access.
Or did you mean the cf.data.pre changes were not descriptive/clear enough?

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

Does adapted_http_access seem clearer?
Being that it's a variant of http_access, always done and only useful when
checking for adapted things.

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

I don't think so. It drops in later in the callbacks function, which is
the only overlap AFAIK.

Amos
Received on Wed Jan 20 2010 - 23:02:19 MST