On 01 Nov 2005, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
> Right, it was a bug.
If lack of implementation can qualify as a bug! ;)
> Mark, thanks a million for the report! :-)
Well, remember to thank me after I nitpick some more
about this. :)
I just grabbed your latest SVN and what is happening past
the HTTP 1.1 check is making a whole lot more sense now that
you've added the If-Range check after the Etag check.
I was wondering if the logic past the HTTP 1.1 check
might be a little better off being reworked? The reason I
mention this is that several HTTP 1.1 headers can make use of the
Etag header, including If-Match (section 14.24), If-None-Match
(section 14.26) and If-Range (section 14.27), with corresponding
RFC sections (since I just copied and pasted that).
Of these, Cherokee fully implements the If-None-Match
header and half of the If-Range header. I think with a little
reworking of the logic, If-Match and the Etag side of If-Range
could be added. I was thinking of doing the If-[None-]Match
checks first since both only use the Etag header, and then if
those fail, pass it on to If-Range by checking the Etag
equivalency first, and if that fails, then checking the date as
Alvaro just added to SVN.
Does that sound right?
--
Mark Nipper e-contacts:
832 Tanglewood Drive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bryan, Texas 77802-4013 http://nipsy.bitgnome.net/
(979)575-3193 AIM/Yahoo: texasnipsy ICQ: 66971617
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GG/IT d- s++:+ a- C++$ UBL++++$ P--->+++ L+++$ !E---
W++(--) N+ o K++ w(---) O++ M V(--) PS+++(+) PE(--)
Y+ PGP t+ 5 X R tv b+++@ DI+(++) D+ G e h r++ y+(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
---begin random quote of the moment---
"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"
-- Frank, "Donnie Darko", 2001
----end random quote of the moment----
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.alobbs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
