[Catalyst-dev] The proxystuffs branch/5.8 Front End Proxy and other Engines.

J. Shirley jshirley at gmail.com
Thu Nov 27 16:00:53 GMT 2008

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Matt S Trout <dbix-class at trout.me.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:21:54PM -0700, J. Shirley wrote:
>> In my never-ending efforts to deploy Catalyst in seemingly unusual
>> configurations, I've come across lacking support for X-Forwarded-Port
>> (or X-Forwarded-Host-Port) as well as X-Forwarded-Proto.
>> Andy pointed me to the "proxystuff" branch, but simply integrating
>> that (regardless of whether the tests pass) may cause other Engine's
>> to break.  I'm not sure which, or even how they will break or how we
>> can detect breakage, so hopefully someone with fresh knowledge of the
>> proxystuff branch will be able to work with me on it.
>> Also, to snag the patch and apply to 5.8 could mean that we can bypass
>> some potential breakage, and at this point finalize a specific
>> "Extending Catalyst Engine's" API.  In my searches here, I've found
>> that not only are there a huge variance in configuration methods, but
>> very few frameworks seem to document all the options thoroughly.
>> And, finally, for 6.0 I think it would be great to just add-in the
>> role support that you want.  So your engine can be with FastCGI,
>> FrontEndProxy, etc.
> Hmm.
> I think Andy put together an HTTP::Engine engine for experimentation. I sort
> of wonder if that's the better place to look at persuading that sort of thing
> to happen since we can switch to a C::E::HTTPEngine as the "standard" without
> worrying about breaking anything else.
> Thoughts, people?

Sounds reasonable to me, but I'd prefer to call it C::E::HTTP::Engine
to keep directly in sync with CPAN.

Yappo is the primary author on maint on HTTP::Engine, so I'll see what
I can do about getting the proxystuffs code into HTTP::Engine and then
I'll hack on C::E::HTTP::Engine in 5.8 to use it.


More information about the Catalyst-dev mailing list