| Summary: | Provide methods for overriding request properties lost when proxying Jetty requests with a web service like Apache. | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [RT] Jetty | Reporter: | Chad La Joie <clajoie> | ||||||
| Component: | server | Assignee: | Greg Wilkins <gregw> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED INVALID | QA Contact: | |||||||
| Severity: | enhancement | ||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | jetty-inbox | ||||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | 7.1.x | ||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||
| OS: | All | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Chad La Joie
Created attachment 186121 [details]
Minimally invasive patch that allows setting scheme and secure'ness of proxied connection
Attached is a jetty-server patch that tries to be very non-invasive and allow for overriding the scheme and secure'ness properties of the request.
Created attachment 186122 [details]
Disregard patch 1, forgot to save a file.
Comment on attachment 186121 [details]
Minimally invasive patch that allows setting scheme and secure'ness of proxied connection
marking attachment as obsolete according to submitter comments
Gunnar & Chad, Jetty-7 now handles the quasi standard X-Forwarded-Proto header, so if you can add that from apache and set it to https, then jetty will set the scheme and confidentiality accordingly. is that sufficient? Sure, that sounds good to me. I'll try to get some verbiage in to the Jetty wiki, some time this week, to note this as well. |