On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:16 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Do you have an internet draft spec for some context here? Is there a > proposal for HTTP/2.0?
websockets > I might also argue that a directive is not the right answer here. > Instead, I'd suggest that modules advertise their ability to consume > protocols. If an Upgrade arrives, and a relevant module is found, then > the request is handled. If no such module is found, then the Upgrade > header is ignored, and nothing happens.˛˛ > > If a module or CGI sees the Upgrade header, then what is the problem? > It cannot truly alter the protocol in effect for the connection. That > seems to be something only possible to handle within the core (to > change the connection handler). > > And back to the "AllowUpgrade" directive. What the heck should it do > if something is present *besides* "none". It isn't like that can be > handled. Some code must be written to provide other protocols, and > *that* code should manage the tokens recognized. Not a directive. Right, I woke up thinking the same thing -- that the http filter is the only place that an Upgrade could actually be implemented because it would have to switch itself off. What I was trying to avoid is a script thinking that it can switch without writing a new protocol filter, or a CGI that deliberately spoofs an upgrade for some nefarious purpose I haven't thought of yet. We can just delete the Upgrade header in the http_filter, for now. ....Roy
