On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:01, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2010, at 12:39 PM, Sorin Manolache wrote:
>
>> Exactly. I thought of the same thing. However, if this "whatever" is a
>> ap_run_sub_req and the requests passes through mod_proxy, mod_proxy
>> does not include the request body for subrequests.
>> ap_proxy_http_request in mod_proxy_http.c contains
>>
>> if (r->main) {
>> ...
>> e = apr_bucket_eos_create(input_brigade->bucket_alloc);
>> APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(input_brigade, e);
>> goto skip_body;
>> }
>>
>> My suggestion was to remove this code from mod_proxy_http.c.
>
> One option you can use is to set r->main to NULL on the subrequest. This
> causes the subrequest to be treated as a main request, which means an
> attempt will be made to read the request body. You need to make sure your
> input filter is in place to provide the request body before you do this, and
> that no attempt is made to read from the connection to the client.
Yes, I am aware of setting r->main to NULL but I think it is too
disruptive. For example, mod_deflate behaves differently if it deals
with a main or a sub-request. Also, some headers are forwarded or not
by mod_proxy depending if the request is a main request or a
sub-request.
So I would really ask the developers of mod_proxy to consider removing
the three lines from the if-block in ap_proxy_http_request.
if (r->main) {
...
e = apr_bucket_eos_create(input_brigade->bucket_alloc);
APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(input_brigade, e);
goto skip_body;
}
Thank you,
Sorin
