feat/pdk.kong.response.redirect

[fairyqb]

Summary

PDK:
kong.response.redirect("http://github.com/kong/kong")

Easy use and understanding.

[guanlan]

Suggest that to add an optional status parameter here as _RESPONSE.redirect(uri, status?), keep the consistency with https://github.com/openresty/lua-nginx-module#ngxredirect.

[bungle]

Some comments

[bungle]

302 is in general a better default, but it should also be an argument.

We also need to construct body. Here is what Nginx does: http://lxr.nginx.org/source/src/http/ngx_http_special_response.c

We can add Kong twist to it.

This should also use kong.response.exit to make short-circuiting work correctly. I am also not sure about the validation there. Is it needed, is it correct?

[fairyqb]

Easy use and understanding.

[bungle]

Just a note here, with our current PDK, you can do this (it implements proper short-circuiting logic too):

return kong.response.exit(302, "", { Location: "<uri>" })

OR (if you prefer Nginx default content for 302):

return kong.response.exit(302, nil, { Location: "<uri>" })

[kikito]

@fairyqb we are very grateful for the time and effort you put into this PR, but I have decided not to include it.

As @bungle has mentioned, redirects can be currently implemented with:

return kong.response.exit(302, "", { Location: "<uri>" })

or:

return kong.response.exit(302, nil, { Location: "<uri>" })

Your proposal ultimately amounts to a slightly simpler set of params, and checking that the uri param is valid. However it has maintenance cost in the form of tests and documentation. I feel that the benefit does not justify the cost in this particular case. In order to avoid other misunderstanding like this, I suggest opening an issue and asking whether it is needed first.

Please don't let this prevent you from sending other PRs in the future! Again, we deeply appreciate it.