On 13 Apr 2000, Lorens Kockum wrote:
> You ask for it :-)
Apparently I did.
> Uhhhhhh ... that is not so. At least not with Apache.
>
> If you go back to the RFCs, as I did a while ago, you'll see
> that `http://servername' is legal and (I think) a synonym of
> `http://servername/'. Do a telnet on your favorite server,
> request the /, and behold, the page, no 304.
Without cannonical name mapping on, Apache behaves differently than it
does if it's off, so I incorrectly assumed it would 304, but apparently
the RFCs make sure the client asks for "/" if there's no directory. (The
point is moot in this case though, since the server 302's to a new
directory no matter what.) I thougth the redirect was tied to virtual
hosting, so it's time for me to go back and read the RFCs again and try
some more traces.
> On the other hand, a subdirectory certainly has the behaviour
> you mention.
>
> If `http://www.enternet.se/foo/' exists, asking for
> `http://www.enternet.se/foo' will in my experience generate a
> round trip.
Yep, my fault for supposing that the behaviour would be consistant no
matter what level the URI pointed to.
>
> I suppose it's because `http://servername/' is unambiguous.
Given DB driven servers, I'm not sure that the redirect isn't as invalid
there as anywhere in the tree, but I need to check a virtual server to see
what happens with various gets to multiple hostnames.
Good catch!
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
