Backporting rlm_rest to 2.1.x

[Alan DeKok]

Gavin Alves wrote:
> 3.0 is not mature enough for my requirements, especially as you say
> there are significant architectural changes.

  3.0 is pretty much stable.  I'm just trying to get a few more minor
features in before the release.

  And architectural changes don't make it unstable...

> I've decided to try initiating the http requests using rlm_perl, which
> as I understand it, should have no significant overhead insofar as the
> interpreter is concerned.  The only downside I see is that it will not
> be possible to reuse the curl connections.  However this is compensated
> for by the ability to design requests in a high level language.

  You should be able to have long-term connections in the Perl code.
See example.pl in recent releases, IIRC.

  Alan DeKok.