> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jess Holle
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. April 2008 16:50
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: 2.2.9 (Was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases)
>
> Jess Holle wrote:
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> Can you try:
> >>
> >> Index: modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c (revision 648735)
> >> +++ modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ajp.c (working copy)
> >> @@ -72,8 +72,13 @@
> >> search = r->args;
> >>
> >> /* process path */
> >> - path = ap_proxy_canonenc(r->pool, url, strlen(url),
> enc_path, 0,
> >> - r->proxyreq);
> >> + if (apr_table_get(r->notes, "proxy-nocanon")) {
> >> + path = url; /* this is the raw path */
> >> + }
> >> + else {
> >> + path = ap_proxy_canonenc(r->pool, url, strlen(url),
> >> + enc_path, 0, r->proxyreq);
> >> + }
> >> if (path == NULL)
> >> return HTTP_BAD_REQUEST;
> > I don't do our Apache builds any more (and don't have
> things set up to
> > do so), but our engineer who does is slated to test the
> patch attached
> > to the bug soon.
> >
> > Is this the same as the patch attached to the bug report -- or a
> > different one?
> To be more clear exactly which patch should we be testing?
You better go with the one from the bug report. Otherwise you end up with
doubled query strings.
Regards
Rüdiger
