-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It's non-trivial but is the best example, I'd point you to FakeBasicAuth
in mod_ssl.
It's a GREAT example. I'm now there: ssl_engine_kernel.c line 1149:
/*
* Auth Handler:
* Fake a Basic authentication from the
* Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Thus my question is, why when Apache was updated to support HTTP/1.1
did it just preserve the HTTP/1.0 type behaviour and not in cases
where it could automatically apply chunked transfer encoding to the
response, apply it?
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The
On 07/04/07, André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Thus my question is, why when Apache was updated to support HTTP/1.1
did it just preserve the HTTP/1.0 type behaviour and not in cases
where it could automatically apply chunked transfer encoding to the
response,
lör 2007-04-07 klockan 09:18 +0200 skrev André Malo:
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The httpd does apply chunked encoding
automatically when it needs to. That is in keep-alive situations without
given or determineable Content-Length.
Why doesn't it do it in all other cases? My
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The person on the WSGI list is more or less claiming that there would
be no harm in a web server always applying chunked transfer encoding
to a response which doesn't specify a content length
Of course this person is entirely wrong if the client doesn't
* Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
lör 2007-04-07 klockan 09:18 +0200 skrev André Malo:
Hmm, you may get something wrong here. The httpd does apply chunked
encoding automatically when it needs to. That is in keep-alive
situations without given or determineable Content-Length.
Why doesn't it do
On Apr 7, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Sriskanthaverl wrote:
I found the following test case failed when running apache-2.2.4 in
SunOS 5.10 x86 platform. Could anybody explain this?
t/modules/includeok 45/86# Failed test 53 in t/modules/
include.t at line 324
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi group,
I'm the author of a Mozilla Firefox extension called Enigform
(http://enigform.mozdev.org), which
enhances HTTP by adding a set of OpenPGP-* headers to outgoing requests,
providing
OpenPGP-compatible digital signing of them.
On 4/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The person on the WSGI list is more or less claiming that there would
be no harm in a web server always applying chunked transfer encoding
to a response which doesn't specify a content length
Of course this
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Chunking support on a response is implicit if you claim HTTP/1.1
support. You don't need to signal it with Accept-Encoding (you can, I
guess). IOW, an HTTP/1.1 client should always a expect a server may
give back chunking... -- justin
Of course, my bad.
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
So, as this authentication module will not ask for a username and
password, just validate against
the request's OpenPGP headers, request payload, and local gpg keyring via
gpgme. Anything you think
of I should be previewing?
It's non-trivial but is
11 matches
Mail list logo
