On 3/2/07, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is the patch below looking good?
does it need adjustments?
do I need to follow a different process?
Filip
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
ok, final patch, this one also adds in Content-Length: 0 when keep
alive is used.
somehow,
Bart van der Schans wrote:
Davi Arnaut wrote:
Looking at it more, the previous check it's also useless. Attempted
patch...
I finally had some time to test the patch and it seems to work
correctly. It still recognizes Unix epoch as a bad date, but mod_cache
won't cache it.
Is there
Bart van der Schans wrote:
Is there any change the patch from Davi will make it in the trunk (and
That should have read chance of course, sorry about the typo.
Bart
Hi List-
This isn't a support question, so please don't ignore it.
It's a legitimate dev-type question on the status of an open bug that I
don't see answers to on bugzilla at:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39243
Can anyone share any sort of status on this bug?
I'm
On 03/03/2007 06:08 PM, Bart van der Schans wrote:
Bart van der Schans wrote:
Davi Arnaut wrote:
Looking at it more, the previous check it's also useless. Attempted
patch...
I finally had some time to test the patch and it seems to work
correctly. It still recognizes Unix epoch as
On 03/03/2007 09:50 PM, Kevin wrote:
Hi List-
This isn't a support question, so please don't ignore it.
It's a legitimate dev-type question on the status of an open bug that I
don't see answers to on bugzilla at:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39243
Can anyone
I'm contemplating an HTTP/1.1-only solution, available only if the client
is willing to present expect-header 100-continue, which would involve
no buffering.
Bill
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03/03/2007 09:50 PM, Kevin wrote:
Hi List-
This isn't a support question, so please don't ignore it.
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:16:52 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm contemplating an HTTP/1.1-only solution, available only if the
client is willing to present expect-header 100-continue, which would
involve no buffering.
In principle:
+1 if it doesn't break current
Nick Kew wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:16:52 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm contemplating an HTTP/1.1-only solution, available only if the
client is willing to present expect-header 100-continue, which would
involve no buffering.
In principle:
+1 if it doesn't
On 03/04/2007 12:28 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:16:52 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm contemplating an HTTP/1.1-only solution, available only if the
client is willing to present expect-header 100-continue, which would
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Providing a better reference to the patch you are talking about would be a
start :-).
Of course, and now when I'm trying to find Davi's mail from the 18th of
January in the archive it seems to be missing, so maybe it didn't even
make it to the list :( So here is his
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03/03/2007 09:50 PM, Kevin wrote:
Hi List-
This isn't a support question, so please don't ignore it.
It's a legitimate dev-type question on the status of an open bug that I
don't see answers to on bugzilla at:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39243
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
From your comments in bugzilla I am not really sure if you are working with
client
certificates (I see you talking about SSL in general only). And even if you are
working with client certificates this only affects you in the case that you
are using Directory or Location
Kevin wrote:
Additionally, I've added the following to the bug report:
Sorry. I should have added above that there are no client certificates
involved in these uploads. I'm not savvy enough about the internals of
either apache or plone to know, but I suppose that means it's possible
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Additionally, I've added the following to the bug report:
Sorry. I should have added above that there are no client certificates
involved in these uploads. I'm not savvy enough about the internals of
either apache or plone to know, but I suppose that
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
No, currently there are no plans to change this. Please have a look at
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39243#c14
Do I understand correctly from this comment that if a user connects to
the site using a client certificate, and if the SSLClientVerify
Kevin wrote:
Is it your take then, that this problem only manifests itself in a
poorly designed web application? If so, I'll pass that along to the
plone developers and maybe they need to modify some of their code.
That's not what that article, or a host of others, has to say about the
Kevin wrote:
Do I understand correctly from this comment that if a user connects to
the site using a client certificate, and if the SSLClientVerify step
happens before the attempted post operation, that the problem won't
occur? If so, then I should be home free, because with plone, one must
18 matches
Mail list logo
