MOD_PROXY and POST requests

2006-09-21 Thread Ronen Yaari
All, I am using Apache 2.2.3 on Windows XP. I configured the mod_proxy to forward requests to my application server. Everything works fine for GET requests. When I use POST requests, Apache does not forward the requests to my Application Server. I found 2 related bugs: 37402,

Re: mod_cache responsibilities vs mod_xxx_cache provider responsibilities

2006-09-21 Thread Issac Goldstand
Issac Goldstand wrote: In any case, if we're proxying for an HTTP/1.0 client using HTTP/1.1 (too tired to check if mod_proxy preserves HTTP version - but will try to check tomorrow if no one beats me to it), or even serving cached content to a 1.0 client originally received by a 1.1 request,

Re: mod_cache responsibilities vs mod_xxx_cache provider responsibilities

2006-09-21 Thread Graham Leggett
On Wed, September 20, 2006 9:50 pm, Ruediger Pluem wrote: You can set a max cache file size (CacheMaxFileSize) which prevents caching files that are larger then a specfic size. This is checked after each bucket is written to the disk. If the stream is larger then the max file size the file

Re: mod_cache responsibilities vs mod_xxx_cache provider responsibilities

2006-09-21 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , VF EITO
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Niklas Edmundsson Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. September 2006 11:38 An: dev@httpd.apache.org Betreff: Re: mod_cache responsibilities vs mod_xxx_cache provider responsibilities On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Graham Leggett wrote: This means the backend

Re: mod_cache responsibilities vs mod_xxx_cache provider responsibilities

2006-09-21 Thread Graham Leggett
On Thu, September 21, 2006 11:05 am, Issac Goldstand wrote: Based on that, it seems to me that the sensible thing to do would be to update the header file to include trailers after the response is complete (and send them as-is as trailers to the initial client). If we're already doing that,

Re: mod_cache responsibilities vs mod_xxx_cache provider responsibilities

2006-09-21 Thread Henrik Nordstrom
tor 2006-09-21 klockan 12:18 +0200 skrev Plüm, Rüdiger, VF EITO: IMHO this waits for a DoS to happen if the requestor can trick the backend to get stuck with the request. So one request of this type would be sufficient to DoS the whole server if the timeout is not very short. How would this