Re: [RFC] proxy_pass: possibly avoid breaking some middlewares

["Lin Jen-Shin (godfat)" <godfat@godfat.org>]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
> "Lin Jen-Shin (godfat)" <godfat@godfat.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
>> > +    # this probably breaks fewer middlewares than returning whatever else...
>> > +    [ 500, [], [] ]
>>
>> You probably meant [ 500, {}, [] ] here?
>
> No, arrays work fine, Rack headers just need to respond to #each
> with key + value strings.

I didn't know this, and just looked at the spec. Indeed it's only
claiming this. However some middleware bundled with Rack
would try to call [ ] method with a string, in those cases,
this would probably give a type error.

I think the spec should probably also claim that it should respond to
[ ] and taking strings as keys.

> I prefer Arrays since they use less memory per-entry, but here they're
> the same cost when empty.

That's great :P

> But I'm also likely to revert this patch since it's no longer a drop-in
> replacement and the old, synchronous ProxyPass is reinstated.

After playing a bit with hijack myself, I started to wonder if hijacking
is really a good idea, exactly the reason that it would probably break
a lot of middleware...