On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 08:52 -0500, Karl Wright wrote:
> But web crawlers often cache the dns step and use an IP address
> instead for the host name.  In that case the host header is critical.
> I imagine there are other similar situations that can arise.
> 

One can always use an explicit HttpHost parameter, which can be a
resolved IP address, to execute a request against a specific host. The
request URI, though, is a purely virtual concept and this is what will
define the value of the Host header. An additional virtual host
parameter should have never existed. 

Besides, one can also plug in a custom DNS resolver that could use a
custom cache of resolved DNS names.

Oleg 

> Karl
> 
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 08:38 -0500, Karl Wright wrote:
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> I don't mind if the virtual host feature goes away, as long as there
> >> is some documentation about the right way to do the same thing.  What
> >> it seems to boil down to is whether or not HttpClient attempts to set
> >> the Host header, and what it puts in there.
> >>
> >> Karl
> >>
> >
> > The thing is, as long as a virtual host is resolvable via DNS, there is
> > simply no need for any kind of special processing. The host name in the
> > request URI request will end up in the Host header.
> >
> > Oleg
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> 
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 08:13 -0500, Karl Wright wrote:
> >> >> The reason it was critical to ManifoldCF was only because we use the
> >> >> default host with virtual host feature fairly extensively.  Working
> >> >> around it is possible but would require a lot of work, and we're
> >> >> trying to release right now too.
> >> >>
> >> >> But if you feel it is not worth fixing, then please let me know.
> >> >>
> >> >> Karl
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I'll cut RC3, no problem. Please note, though, that the virtual host
> >> > parameter will no longer be supported in 4.3. The damn thing should have
> >> > never existed in the first place.
> >> >
> >> > Oleg
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 11:42 +0000, sebb wrote:
> >> >> >> On 10 January 2013 02:51, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Confirmed that it IS a regression, but that the regression has been
> >> >> >> > around since 4.1.2.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for checking.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In that case, I think it can be fixed later.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I do not even think this bug is major, let alone critical. It is 
> >> >> > really
> >> >> > a fringe case.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oleg
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Karl
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> 
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> I checked in a fix and a test on trunk.  Somebody please let me 
> >> >> >> >> know
> >> >> >> >> if the fix/test will be indeed going into 4.2.3.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >> >> >> Karl
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> 
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> It's apparently the result of a fix for HTTPCLIENT-1092.  I am 
> >> >> >> >>> not
> >> >> >> >>> sure when exactly that went in though.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Karl
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:19 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> On 10 January 2013 01:51, Karl Wright <[email protected]> 
> >> >> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>> -1 from me (not binding), due to HTTPCLIENT-1296. :-(
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Is that a regression?
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Karl
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski 
> >> >> >> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents 
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Client 4.2.3.
> >> >> >> >>>>>> The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes 
> >> >> >> >>>>>> from
> >> >> >> >>>>>> HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at 
> >> >> >> >>>>>> least
> >> >> >> >>>>>> three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 
> >> >> >> >>>>>> votes.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Packages:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~olegk/httpclient-4.2.3-RC2/
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Release notes:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~olegk/httpclient-4.2.3-RC2/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Maven artefacts:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-114/org/apache/httpcomponents/
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> SVN tag:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.2.3-RC2/
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >>>>>>  Vote:  HttpComponents Client 4.2.3 release
> >> >> >> >>>>>>  [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.2.3.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>  [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a 
> >> >> >> >>>>>> reason).
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to