You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to bugs@httpd.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2020/01/24 16:46:13 UTC

[Bug 63628] Support specifying the http status codes to be considered by ProxyErrorOverride

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63628

Martin Drößler <ma...@martindroessler.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #36701|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #3 from Martin Drößler <ma...@martindroessler.de> ---
Created attachment 36979
  --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36979&action=edit
Patch ProxyErrorOverride to allow specifying custom codes

I finally managed to implemented the changes proposed on the mailing-list:

> I think the proxy_util.c additions need an ap_ prefix and need to be
> declared like all of the other non-static functions with AP_DECLARE.
Done (but used PROXY_DECLARE)

> The description and the manual seem to hide the use of this for
> non-error codes while the diff seems to go out of its way to allow
> non-error codes.
> I think it should either be constrained in the diff or have some
> notes/warnings/elaboration in the doc.
Good point. I also changed that in the implementation as well as documentation.

> I personally do not like the use of two directives and the intercept
> and override terminology mixing. I prefer that ProxyErrorOverride is
> extended to accept ON or a list of status codes.
I merged the directives to allow a list of status codes after the ON in the
ProxyErrorOverride directive.

> Another personal nit -- the name of the two added functions is not so
> clear to me.
I changed the name of at least one of the methods to make it less confusing. If
you feel, that the naming still isn't optimal, I'm of course open for
suggestions.

> Also, is_proxy_error_intercept_code could be static (and not in
> mod_proxy.h) or just part of the other method since it is only called
> from the other method.
You're right. Changed that as well.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org