Am 01.11.19 um 14:24 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau: > > > Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 11:26, Felix Schumacher > <felix.schumac...@internetallee.de > <mailto:felix.schumac...@internetallee.de>> a écrit : > > > Am 01.11.19 um 11:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau: >> Through the spi IMHO and if it can be ambiguous use an ordinal or >> priority to let it be overriden maybe? > > Do we want users to be able to overwrite our functions? Is the > "int:" namespace free for everyone? > > I think so, like enabling to enrich it (often implemented as a delegation) > > > > Should we break the context startup in case of duplicate functions > in the registry? > > > If they have the same priority I think so.
I have submitted a PR that tries to implement the discussed features: https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/221 Felix > > > Felix > >> >> Le ven. 1 nov. 2019 à 10:46, Felix Schumacher >> <felix.schumac...@internetallee.de >> <mailto:felix.schumac...@internetallee.de>> a écrit : >> >> >> Am 28.10.19 um 23:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau: >>> +1 for quotes >>> >>> Can the "function" support be pluggable either with an >>> explicit registry or a SPI? Would be awesome to enrich it in >>> "super tomcat" instances (thinking to meecrowave, tomee and >>> maybe spring boot). >> >> The function support is already pluggable (by the >> configuration file :), but I thought about adding SPI. >> >> It is unclear to me, how to determine the namespace ("int:" >> in the httpd example), should it be given by the Service >> Provider? Would "int" be reserved for our own functions? How >> could we achieve such a reservation mechnism? >> >> Felix >> >>> >>> Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 21:43, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org >>> <mailto:ma...@apache.org>> a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27/10/2019 11:27, Felix Schumacher wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > while looking at the RewriteMap configuration, I >>> noticed, that parsing >>> > of the RewriteMap directive is a bit minimal. >>> Parameters are split at >>> > whitespace (no quotes will be recognized) and only the >>> first of the >>> > optional parameters will be used. >>> > >>> > Should this be changed? If so, should we introduce >>> quoting capabilities >>> > to gather the "one" optional parameter, or allow >>> multiple parameters? >>> > >>> > Version "quote": >>> > >>> > RewriteMap m1 example.MyMap "some params" >>> > >>> > Version "multiple" >>> > >>> > RewriteMap m2 example.OtherMap one two three >>> > >>> > Or should it be a combination? >>> >>> That is probably the most flexible option. I'd lean >>> towards this option >>> but would be happy to support the majority view if >>> different. >>> >>> > "quote" would be sort of compatible with the current >>> interface, as we >>> > still have only one parameter. "multiple" would be a >>> nicer interface for >>> > the implementer of the map. >>> > >>> > Another thing I noticed, is that the httpd rewrite map >>> feature has a few >>> > builtin maps, that could be useful to supply with our >>> implementation. >>> > Any thoughts on supplying those? (I thought about the maps >>> > int:[toupper,tolower,escape,unescape], txt:, rnd: and >>> possibly a new one >>> > called jdbc:{jndi-connection}:{sql statement with >>> placeholder}. For >>> > these elements a quote detection would be a must) >>> >>> I don't recall any requests for these on the users list >>> but maybe that >>> is because the feature isn't that well known. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >>> <mailto:dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org> >>>
