I like "fastcgi_path_info" because it is most concise; however, I think "fastcgi_split_path_info" is the better name because it more clearly expresses the idea of the directive and its effects.<br><br>Also, while we're filling your head with ideas during vacation, I must say that just the other day I really wanted location captures! I ended up finding another way to do what I wanted cleanly, but I can see myself [ab]using such a feature for all kinds of things in the future...<br>
<br>Thanks and enjoy the rest of your vacation :).<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Igor Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@ruby-forum.com">lists@ruby-forum.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">Igor Sysoev wrote:<br>
<br>
> OK, then I will plan to simplify PATH_INFO extraction some like this:<br>
><br>
> fastcgi_path_info ^(.+\.php)(/.+);<br>
><br>
> the directive will place 1st capture inside $fastcgi_script_name<br>
> and second one inside $fastcgi_path_info.<br>
><br>
> Other name variants:<br>
><br>
> fastcgi_separate_path_info<br>
> fastcgi_split_path_info<br>
><br>
> What name is better in English ?<br>
<br>
</div>Hi, this will be useful, thanks Igor.<br>
I think fastcgi_split_path_info is best.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Igor Clark<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
Posted via <a href="http://www.ruby-forum.com/" target="_blank">http://www.ruby-forum.com/</a>.<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>