So is "rewrite_by_lua" also evil?

[agentzh]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Nginx User <nginx at nginxuser.net> wrote:
> All in all, I have come to realise that ngx_lua is slightly evil in
> that unexpected things can happen. As with "if" however, evil
> understood is evil avoided :-)
>

The ngx_lua module won't play seamlessly with ngx_rewrite because
ngx_rewrite does use internal hacks and tricks to make things work. So
I'd recommend use Lua to do as much as possible and avoid using
ngx_rewrite's directives but simple "set".

> Any thoughts on Marcus' points earlier on clearing the ctx in the core?

Well, there're indeed cases that we do want to retain module contexts
during a jump but I've already managed to "abuse" the post_subrequest
mechanism to save the pointer to my module's context and later restore
it in my output header filter, for example. (See how I do this in my
ngx_lua module for ngx.location.capture.)

But on the other hand, if I do want to clear my module's context
before a internal redirection, then there's no easy way to do that
myself.

> Seems to suggest that may cause problems elsewhere and that it is
> better to be handled at the module level.

No, this is impossible to handle that fully on the module level. For
example, if you do use ngx_upload module's upload_pass instead of
ngx_lua or ngx_echo to do the jump, then it'll still break
rewrite_by_lua and access_by_lua (at least).

> Seems logical as whether it was originally an oversight or not,
> changing it now would break other stuff.
>

I doubt it :) Unless one only jump to named locations and never to
normal locations. The behaviors here are already inconsistent and very
hard to work around.

Regards,
-agentzh