Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
Looks good... +1 On Jul 13, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: Patch updated: http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana-v1_1.patch If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend. Regards, Rainer
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On 16.07.2012 14:26, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looks good... +1 Applied in r1361784 plus r1361791 (cosmetics). Does this need an MMN bump? - additional defines for the status codes in httpd.h - increased array size via RESPONSE_CODES (same file) Would it be a minor bump? Regards, Rainer On Jul 13, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: Patch updated: http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana-v1_1.patch If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend. Regards, Rainer
RE: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
-Original Message- From: Rainer Jung [mailto:rainer.j...@kippdata.de] Sent: Montag, 16. Juli 2012 14:43 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ?? On 16.07.2012 14:26, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looks good... +1 Applied in r1361784 plus r1361791 (cosmetics). Does this need an MMN bump? - additional defines for the status codes in httpd.h - increased array size via RESPONSE_CODES (same file) Would it be a minor bump? IMHO minor. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
Yes, minor. Thx! On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: On 16.07.2012 14:26, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looks good... +1 Applied in r1361784 plus r1361791 (cosmetics). Does this need an MMN bump? - additional defines for the status codes in httpd.h - increased array size via RESPONSE_CODES (same file) Would it be a minor bump? Regards, Rainer On Jul 13, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: Patch updated: http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana-v1_1.patch If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend. Regards, Rainer
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM. Any chance of getting my RFC 5878 patch in?
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM. FYI I'd like for this backport to make the cut if anyone can review / Jim can wait since it's frustrating for users to debug. * core: AllowOverride Options inadvertently treated like AllowOverride Options=FollowSymlinks after r1052419 PR53444 This is in.
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track them into 2.4.3. On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: ++1! On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-07-11 19:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote: I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what he is doing with regard to HTTP. In general, we should consider Thanks :-) the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug, In which case we should fix the registry. which means we should support everything in http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml Yes. If we want to get all of these in, I can open a separate ticket and provide another patch. Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On 2012-07-13 18:02, Jim Jagielski wrote: If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track them into 2.4.3. ... I'm currently challenged by Cygwin so I can't make the changes myself (well, unless somebody wants to do the hand-holding to get my build working). Can we get the 308 change in separately? Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On 13.07.2012 18:02, Jim Jagielski wrote: If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track them into 2.4.3. I drafted a patch available at http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana.patch Coments: - I didn't fix the indentation in include/httpd.h in order to keep the patch readable. Some of the new codes have a short description which is a bit longer than the longest one used up to now. - I didn't fix the old define named HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LARGE which should have been HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LONG since it is defined in a public header file - I included all changes proposed by Julian - there is a big gap of unused numbers between 208 and 226 which I filled with unknown as was done before due to the limitations in ap_index_of_response() (focus on performance there) - I added canned error strings for the new codes - I did not yet define new error documents. The new pages could be HTTP_PRECONDITION_REQUIRED 428 HTTP_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS 429 HTTP_REQUEST_HEADER_FIELDS_TOO_LARGE 431 HTTP_LOOP_DETECTED 508 HTTP_NETWORK_AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED 511 Furthermore some other 4xx and 5xx codes already defined in httpd.h also have no error page: HTTP_PAYMENT_REQUIRED 402 HTTP_NOT_ACCEPTABLE406 HTTP_PROXY_AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED 407 HTTP_CONFLICT 409 HTTP_RANGE_NOT_SATISFIABLE 416 HTTP_EXPECTATION_FAILED417 HTTP_UNPROCESSABLE_ENTITY 422 HTTP_LOCKED423 HTTP_FAILED_DEPENDENCY 424 HTTP_UPGRADE_REQUIRED 426 HTTP_GATEWAY_TIME_OUT 504 HTTP_VERSION_NOT_SUPPORTED 505 HTTP_INSUFFICIENT_STORAGE 507 HTTP_NOT_EXTENDED 510 I guess that means defining ones for the new codes is not a must ... - I did not check, which of the new codes actually should change behaviour of the web server!! Regards, Rainer On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: ++1! On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-07-11 19:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote: I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what he is doing with regard to HTTP. In general, we should consider Thanks :-) the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug, In which case we should fix the registry. which means we should support everything in http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml Yes. If we want to get all of these in, I can open a separate ticket and provide another patch. Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On Friday 13 July 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 13.07.2012 18:02, Jim Jagielski wrote:
If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track
them into 2.4.3.
I drafted a patch available at
http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-ia
na.patch
Coments:
- I didn't fix the indentation in include/httpd.h in order
to keep the patch readable.
Some of the new codes have a short description which is a bit
longer than the longest one used up to now.
- I didn't fix the old define named HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LARGE
which should have been HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LONG since it
is defined in a public header file
- I included all changes proposed by Julian
- there is a big gap of unused numbers between 208 and 226 which
I filled with unknown as was done before due to the
limitations in ap_index_of_response() (focus on performance there)
Looks mostly good.
The lua_vmprep.c part has a spurios change to the makeintegerfield
define, though.
And I would replace all unknown/unused descriptions with NULL and
change the check in ap_index_of_response() to
if (pos shortcut[i + 1] status_lines[pos] != NULL) {
This way, we correctly return 500 for unused response codes and we
don't need to store dozens of unused strings.
BTW, one should do a make clean (or make depend) after applying the
patch.
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On 13.07.2012 21:52, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Friday 13 July 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 13.07.2012 18:02, Jim Jagielski wrote:
If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track
them into 2.4.3.
I drafted a patch available at
http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-ia
na.patch
Coments:
- I didn't fix the indentation in include/httpd.h in order
to keep the patch readable.
Some of the new codes have a short description which is a bit
longer than the longest one used up to now.
- I didn't fix the old define named HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LARGE
which should have been HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LONG since it
is defined in a public header file
- I included all changes proposed by Julian
- there is a big gap of unused numbers between 208 and 226 which
I filled with unknown as was done before due to the
limitations in ap_index_of_response() (focus on performance there)
Looks mostly good.
The lua_vmprep.c part has a spurios change to the makeintegerfield
define, though.
Oups sorry, I had already seen that during compilation but finally
forgot to actually fix the patch.
And I would replace all unknown/unused descriptions with NULL and
change the check in ap_index_of_response() to
if (pos shortcut[i + 1] status_lines[pos] != NULL) {
Done
This way, we correctly return 500 for unused response codes and we
don't need to store dozens of unused strings.
Patch updated:
http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana-v1_1.patch
If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On 2012-07-13 23:02, Rainer Jung wrote: ... If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend. ... Sounds good to me, and many thanks! Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On 2012-07-11 19:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote: I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what he is doing with regard to HTTP. In general, we should consider Thanks :-) the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug, In which case we should fix the registry. which means we should support everything in http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml Yes. If we want to get all of these in, I can open a separate ticket and provide another patch. Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
++1! On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-07-11 19:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote: I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what he is doing with regard to HTTP. In general, we should consider Thanks :-) the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug, In which case we should fix the registry. which means we should support everything in http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml Yes. If we want to get all of these in, I can open a separate ticket and provide another patch. Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On 2012-07-11 05:09, Jim Jagielski wrote: Just how supported and standard is this? Chrome seems to use it for something else: http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal I was told by Google that they are phasing this out (this may already have happened), and then will fix http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=109012. Not that it *is* implemented in Firefox 14, shipping next week: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714302. Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
Roy, as Main Dude for compliance, any issue with getting https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292 into trunk (and 2.4.x)? On Jul 11, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-07-11 05:09, Jim Jagielski wrote: Just how supported and standard is this? Chrome seems to use it for something else: http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal I was told by Google that they are phasing this out (this may already have happened), and then will fix http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=109012. Not that it *is* implemented in Firefox 14, shipping next week: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714302. Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM. FYI I'd like for this backport to make the cut if anyone can review / Jim can wait since it's frustrating for users to debug. * core: AllowOverride Options inadvertently treated like AllowOverride Options=FollowSymlinks after r1052419 PR53444 trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1359976 2.4.x patch: trunk works (+ CHANGES) +1: covener
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what he is doing with regard to HTTP. In general, we should consider the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug, which means we should support everything in http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml Roy On Jul 11, 2012, at 5:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Roy, as Main Dude for compliance, any issue with getting https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292 into trunk (and 2.4.x)? On Jul 11, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-07-11 05:09, Jim Jagielski wrote: Just how supported and standard is this? Chrome seems to use it for something else: http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal I was told by Google that they are phasing this out (this may already have happened), and then will fix http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=109012. Not that it *is* implemented in Firefox 14, shipping next week: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714302. Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
On 2012-07-10 16:16, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM. Would be awesome to get https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292 into both trunk and 2.4.*... Best regards, Julian
Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
Just how supported and standard is this? Chrome seems to use it for something else: http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-07-10 16:16, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM. Would be awesome to get https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292 into both trunk and 2.4.*... Best regards, Julian
