[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-1752?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14000978#comment-14000978
]
Hudson commented on NUTCH-1752:
-------------------------------
SUCCESS: Integrated in Nutch-trunk #2630 (See
[https://builds.apache.org/job/Nutch-trunk/2630/])
NUTCH-1752 Cache robots.txt rules per protocol:host:port (snagel:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/nutch/trunk/?view=rev&rev=1594071)
* /nutch/branches/2.x/CHANGES.txt
*
/nutch/branches/2.x/src/plugin/lib-http/src/java/org/apache/nutch/protocol/http/api/HttpRobotRulesParser.java
* /nutch/trunk/CHANGES.txt
*
/nutch/trunk/src/plugin/lib-http/src/java/org/apache/nutch/protocol/http/api/HttpRobotRulesParser.java
> cache robots.txt rules per protocol:host:port
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NUTCH-1752
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-1752
> Project: Nutch
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: protocol
> Affects Versions: 1.8, 2.2.1
> Reporter: Sebastian Nagel
> Assignee: Sebastian Nagel
> Fix For: 2.3, 1.9
>
> Attachments: NUTCH-1752-v1.patch, NUTCH-1752-v2.patch
>
>
> HttpRobotRulesParser caches rules from {{robots.txt}} per "protocol:host"
> (before NUTCH-1031 caching was per "host" only). The caching should be per
> "protocol:host:port". In doubt, a request to a different port may deliver a
> different {{robots.txt}}.
> Applying robots.txt rules to a combination of host, protocol, and port is
> common practice:
> [Norobots RFC 1996 draft|http://www.robotstxt.org/norobots-rfc.txt] does not
> mention this explicitly (could be derived from examples) but others do:
> * [Wikipedia|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt]: "each protocol and
> port needs its own robots.txt file"
> * [Google
> webmasters|https://developers.google.com/webmasters/control-crawl-index/docs/robots_txt]:
> "The directives listed in the robots.txt file apply only to the host,
> protocol and port number where the file is hosted."
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
