RemoteIPProxyProtocol

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Once we backport to 2.4, it will be nigh-impossible to change
the name...

As we *sure* we want to call it RemoteIPProxyProtocol instead
of just "regular" ProxyProtocol ?

The latter just sounds and looks "more right" to me.

Re: RemoteIPProxyProtocol

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

On 15 Jan 2017, at 18:35, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:

>> As we *sure* we want to call it RemoteIPProxyProtocol instead
>> of just "regular" ProxyProtocol ?
>> 
>> The latter just sounds and looks "more right" to me.
> 
> I still like RemoteIPProxyProtocol because I also like the idea of
> "namespacing" modules' directives.

+1.

Anything starting with Proxy* should be in a module called mod_proxy*, otherwise confusion will ensue.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: RemoteIPProxyProtocol

[Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>]

On 1/9/2017 8:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Once we backport to 2.4, it will be nigh-impossible to change
> the name...
>
> As we *sure* we want to call it RemoteIPProxyProtocol instead
> of just "regular" ProxyProtocol ?
>
> The latter just sounds and looks "more right" to me.

I still like RemoteIPProxyProtocol because I also like the idea of
"namespacing" modules' directives.

-- 
Daniel Ruggeri

AW: RemoteIPProxyProtocol

[Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ru...@vodafone.com>]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 9. Januar 2017 15:50
> An: httpd <de...@httpd.apache.org>
> Betreff: RemoteIPProxyProtocol
> 
> Once we backport to 2.4, it will be nigh-impossible to change
> the name...
> 
> As we *sure* we want to call it RemoteIPProxyProtocol instead
> of just "regular" ProxyProtocol ?
> 
> The latter just sounds and looks "more right" to me.

+1 to RemoteIPProxyProtocol

Regards

Rüdiger