Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
We are now discussing this problem on JSR-053's mailing list. It turns out that several other vendors break the spec and do somewhat close to the right thing. :-) Unfortunately, due to the politics at Sun, only members of the JSR can see this discussion. Sorry. -jon
RE: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
I agree that prohibitting PATH_INFO for extension mapped servlets is not good. But, a lot of people have been throwing things like "this violates the HTTP specification" or "this violates the HTML specification". Would someone please show me where either of these specifications makes any mention of PATH_INFO? PATH_INFO is a CGI concept and CGI is a finalist for the least specified specification award. Also, the CGI specification does not describe any methods for mapping URLs to CGI applications, this is a function of the Web server, so it doesn't really help much in the debate over how PATH_INFO should be treated with extension mappings vs. prefix mappings. That said, what little information is provided in the specification would lend credence to the side (my side, actually) that PATH_INFO should be available in either case. Here's the section on the PATH_INFO environment variable: --- - PATH_INFO The extra path information, as given by the client. In other words, scripts can be accessed by their virtual pathname, followed by extra information at the end of this path. The extra information is sent as PATH_INFO. This information should be decoded by the server if it comes from a URL before it is passed to the CGI script. --- Since this stuff has *nothing* to do with HTTP or HTML, the servlet specification is free to specify what getPathInfo() returns however it pleases. The examples provided on this thread provide good reasons why the existing specification is lacking and I think it should be changed. Lets just understand why it needs changed and not through non-existent specification violation claims. Marc Saegesser > -Original Message- > From: Christopher Cain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > > > Quoting Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I'm a member of JSR-053. I will work to change it for the next release > > of the spec. > > Cool. From what I've heard, the entire TC developer community is > behind you > 100%. Hell, even Costin agrees with you ... now *that's* truly a > red letter day > =) > > > Needless to say, this has a serious impact on Turbine's ability to > > function. > > It is complete bullshit that it works fine if defined through a servlet, > > but not with extension mapping. > > > > This works: > > http://www.foo.com/context/servlet/Turbine/template/Foo.vm > > > > This doesn't: > > http://www.foo.com/context/Foo.vm/bar/ack > > > > As a result, there is no way for Turbine to work properly with > > extension mapping because it relies on passing information in the > > PATH_INFO and not QUERY_STRING because of the need for search > > engines to be able to archive website information. > > That sucks, bro. I empathize. I don't know that much about Turbine, to be > honest, but would my proposed change to respecting the HTML spec > for static > content help out with the second case above? I know it's not > really static, but > if it's outside of the explicit servlet area, would it fall under > the auspices > of the servlet behavior or the static behavior? Or am I just > reaching for a > loophole? :) > > - Christopher > > /** > * Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau! > * La moitié de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau. > *---Corneille > */
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
on 10/1/01 9:09 AM, "Steve Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As another datapoint, static content with Apache doesn't work if you append > path info to an HTML page, i.e. http://www.foo.com/index.html/foo/bar, > doesn't deliver index.html. But PHP does work. -jon
RE: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
As far as I can tell, the HTTP and HTML specs are completely silent on this. The CGI spec talks about PATH_INFO et al, but doesn't seem to address extension mapping. As another datapoint, static content with Apache doesn't work if you append path info to an HTML page, i.e. http://www.foo.com/index.html/foo/bar, doesn't deliver index.html. > -Original Message- > From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:50 PM > To: tomcat-dev > Subject: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > > > on 9/30/01 5:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the conclusion was that the HTTP spec is wrong and we should > > follow the Servlet spec. > > That is complete BS. The servlet spec shouldn't 'override' > what is defined > in the HTTP spec unless absolutely necessary. This is definitely not a > necessary case, but instead an act of stupidity. > > > Workaround - declare each page with exact mappings in web.xml. > > Making me specify each and every page in my webapp in the > web.xml is just > plain BS. > > I bet that a URL like this works: > > http://www.foo.com/MicrosoftIsBetterThanSun.asp/foo/bar > > I *know* that this URL works: > > http://www.foo.com/PHPIsBetterThanJSP.php/foo/bar > > Essentially, what you are doing by removing this capability > is preventing > the SCRIPT_NAME from having PATH_INFO and that is not right > according to the > HTTP spec. I don't think that a Servlet container can > override the behavior > of the HTTP spec and still claim HTTP compliance. > > -jon > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender via e-mail. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
Quoting Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm a member of JSR-053. I will work to change it for the next release > of the spec. Cool. From what I've heard, the entire TC developer community is behind you 100%. Hell, even Costin agrees with you ... now *that's* truly a red letter day =) > Needless to say, this has a serious impact on Turbine's ability to > function. > It is complete bullshit that it works fine if defined through a servlet, > but not with extension mapping. > > This works: > http://www.foo.com/context/servlet/Turbine/template/Foo.vm > > This doesn't: > http://www.foo.com/context/Foo.vm/bar/ack > > As a result, there is no way for Turbine to work properly with > extension mapping because it relies on passing information in the > PATH_INFO and not QUERY_STRING because of the need for search > engines to be able to archive website information. That sucks, bro. I empathize. I don't know that much about Turbine, to be honest, but would my proposed change to respecting the HTML spec for static content help out with the second case above? I know it's not really static, but if it's outside of the explicit servlet area, would it fall under the auspices of the servlet behavior or the static behavior? Or am I just reaching for a loophole? :) - Christopher /** * Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau! * La moitié de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau. *---Corneille */
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
on 9/30/01 10:30 PM, "Christopher Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's unfortunate that this didn't come up a few weeks ago, before the > finalization. I'll add my voice to the general sentiment that the servlet spec > really should've have tried to supercede the HTML spec on this, whether they > thought the HTML spec was wrong or not. Conflicting specs are generally a > bigger PITA than whatever was wrong with the first spec. > > In any case, I would have to agree that we cannot blatantly ignore something > that is explicitly disallowed in the servlet spec. One reasonable solution > that > comes to mind would be to follow the servlet/jsp spec for servlets and jsp, > and > to follow the HTML spec for static content. But then again, it's a little > strange to have differing behaviors based on the type of content being served. > Throw mapping in there, and it muddies the waters even more. I just think that > there is a point to be made, however, that any static content being served up > by TC does not conform to the HTML spec. > > Did I mention that this is a really unfortunate problem? :) I'm a member of JSR-053. I will work to change it for the next release of the spec. Needless to say, this has a serious impact on Turbine's ability to function. It is complete bullshit that it works fine if defined through a servlet, but not with extension mapping. This works: http://www.foo.com/context/servlet/Turbine/template/Foo.vm This doesn't: http://www.foo.com/context/Foo.vm/bar/ack As a result, there is no way for Turbine to work properly with extension mapping because it relies on passing information in the PATH_INFO and not QUERY_STRING because of the need for search engines to be able to archive website information. -jon
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
on 9/30/01 8:45 PM, "Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As much as my personal preference is the same as Jon and Costin, it seems > that section 11.1 rule #3 explicitly dis-allows extension mappings to have a > PATH_INFO. > > If the last segment in URL path contains an extension (e.g .jsp) the servlet > container will try to match a servlet that handles requests for the > extension. An extension is defined as the part of the last segment after the > last '.' character. > > This is from the 2.3 Spec, since Jon is a 4.0 user. The spec is wrong. -jon
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
It's unfortunate that this didn't come up a few weeks ago, before the finalization. I'll add my voice to the general sentiment that the servlet spec really should've have tried to supercede the HTML spec on this, whether they thought the HTML spec was wrong or not. Conflicting specs are generally a bigger PITA than whatever was wrong with the first spec. In any case, I would have to agree that we cannot blatantly ignore something that is explicitly disallowed in the servlet spec. One reasonable solution that comes to mind would be to follow the servlet/jsp spec for servlets and jsp, and to follow the HTML spec for static content. But then again, it's a little strange to have differing behaviors based on the type of content being served. Throw mapping in there, and it muddies the waters even more. I just think that there is a point to be made, however, that any static content being served up by TC does not conform to the HTML spec. Did I mention that this is a really unfortunate problem? :) Quoting Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > As much as my personal preference is the same as Jon and Costin, it > seems that section 11.1 rule #3 explicitly dis-allows extension > mappings to have a PATH_INFO. > > If the last segment in URL path contains an extension (e.g .jsp) the > servlet > container will try to match a servlet that handles requests for the > extension. An extension is defined as the part of the last segment after > the > last '.' character. > > This is from the 2.3 Spec, since Jon is a 4.0 user. > > - Original Message - > From: "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "tomcat-dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:49 PM > Subject: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > > > > on 9/30/01 5:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > the conclusion was that the HTTP spec is wrong and we should > > > follow the Servlet spec. > > > > That is complete BS. The servlet spec shouldn't 'override' what is > defined > > in the HTTP spec unless absolutely necessary. This is definitely not > a > > necessary case, but instead an act of stupidity. > > > > > Workaround - declare each page with exact mappings in web.xml. > > > > Making me specify each and every page in my webapp in the web.xml is > just > > plain BS. > > > > I bet that a URL like this works: > > > > http://www.foo.com/MicrosoftIsBetterThanSun.asp/foo/bar > > > > I *know* that this URL works: > > > > http://www.foo.com/PHPIsBetterThanJSP.php/foo/bar > > > > Essentially, what you are doing by removing this capability is > preventing > > the SCRIPT_NAME from having PATH_INFO and that is not right according > to > the > > HTTP spec. I don't think that a Servlet container can override the > behavior > > of the HTTP spec and still claim HTTP compliance. > > > > -jon > > > > > > > ** > > This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above > > as the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is > PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, > you may not read, copy, or distribute this message or any attachment. > > If you received this communication in error, please notify us > immediately > by e-mail and then delete all copies of this message and any > attachments. > > > In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent > > through the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or > sensitive > information, such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal > > identification numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) > > e-mail. > - Christopher /** * Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau! * La moitié de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau. *---Corneille */
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
As much as my personal preference is the same as Jon and Costin, it seems that section 11.1 rule #3 explicitly dis-allows extension mappings to have a PATH_INFO. If the last segment in URL path contains an extension (e.g .jsp) the servlet container will try to match a servlet that handles requests for the extension. An extension is defined as the part of the last segment after the last '.' character. This is from the 2.3 Spec, since Jon is a 4.0 user. - Original Message - From: "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tomcat-dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:49 PM Subject: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > on 9/30/01 5:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the conclusion was that the HTTP spec is wrong and we should > > follow the Servlet spec. > > That is complete BS. The servlet spec shouldn't 'override' what is defined > in the HTTP spec unless absolutely necessary. This is definitely not a > necessary case, but instead an act of stupidity. > > > Workaround - declare each page with exact mappings in web.xml. > > Making me specify each and every page in my webapp in the web.xml is just > plain BS. > > I bet that a URL like this works: > > http://www.foo.com/MicrosoftIsBetterThanSun.asp/foo/bar > > I *know* that this URL works: > > http://www.foo.com/PHPIsBetterThanJSP.php/foo/bar > > Essentially, what you are doing by removing this capability is preventing > the SCRIPT_NAME from having PATH_INFO and that is not right according to the > HTTP spec. I don't think that a Servlet container can override the behavior > of the HTTP spec and still claim HTTP compliance. > > -jon > > ** This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of this message and any attachments. In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
Actually, Google is one of the few sites that do cache pages with query strings (try searching for "tmwx" if you don't believe me). - Original Message - From: "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tomcat-dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:37 PM Subject: Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping > on 9/30/01 7:16 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, I agree with you - but I feel ofended by the 'you' in this > > phrase. I didn't removed it - I spent quite a bit of time and arguments to > > keep it in. > > > > BTW, it has nothing to do with the HTTP spec ( which doesn't specify > > anything like that), but with the way all known web servers operate. > > And it has nothing to do with JSPs as well - it's true for any extension > > mapped servlets. > > > > Costin > > The implications of this are HUGE though and it really needs to be fixed > back. It essentially means that it is impossible to use suffix mapping in > order to have a searchable website. In other words, Google.com doesn't cache > websites with a "?" in the URL. If we can't pass GET parameters via > PATH_INFO, then where/how can we pass this information around? > > -jon > > ** This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of this message and any attachments. In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
on 9/30/01 7:16 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I agree with you - but I feel ofended by the 'you' in this > phrase. I didn't removed it - I spent quite a bit of time and arguments to > keep it in. > > BTW, it has nothing to do with the HTTP spec ( which doesn't specify > anything like that), but with the way all known web servers operate. > And it has nothing to do with JSPs as well - it's true for any extension > mapped servlets. > > Costin The implications of this are HUGE though and it really needs to be fixed back. It essentially means that it is impossible to use suffix mapping in order to have a searchable website. In other words, Google.com doesn't cache websites with a "?" in the URL. If we can't pass GET parameters via PATH_INFO, then where/how can we pass this information around? -jon
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Jon Stevens wrote: > on 9/30/01 3:57 PM, "Ignacio J. Ortega" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You lost, this URL does not work in IIS ( 404 ).. > > > > Ug. I guess so. JSP == ASP. :-( If you use extension mapping in velocity, it'll be the same, it has nothing to do with JSPs. Costin
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Jon Stevens wrote: > on 9/30/01 5:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the conclusion was that the HTTP spec is wrong and we should > > follow the Servlet spec. > > That is complete BS. The servlet spec shouldn't 'override' what is defined > in the HTTP spec unless absolutely necessary. This is definitely not a > necessary case, but instead an act of stupidity. > > > Workaround - declare each page with exact mappings in web.xml. > > Making me specify each and every page in my webapp in the web.xml is just > plain BS. > > I bet that a URL like this works: > > http://www.foo.com/MicrosoftIsBetterThanSun.asp/foo/bar > > I *know* that this URL works: > > http://www.foo.com/PHPIsBetterThanJSP.php/foo/bar > > Essentially, what you are doing by removing this capability is preventing > the SCRIPT_NAME from having PATH_INFO and that is not right according to the > HTTP spec. I don't think that a Servlet container can override the behavior > of the HTTP spec and still claim HTTP compliance. Well, I agree with you - but I feel ofended by the 'you' in this phrase. I didn't removed it - I spent quite a bit of time and arguments to keep it in. BTW, it has nothing to do with the HTTP spec ( which doesn't specify anything like that), but with the way all known web servers operate. And it has nothing to do with JSPs as well - it's true for any extension mapped servlets. Costin
Re: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
on 9/30/01 3:57 PM, "Ignacio J. Ortega" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You lost, this URL does not work in IIS ( 404 ).. > Ug. I guess so. JSP == ASP. :-( -jon
RE: SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO with extension mapping
> > I bet that a URL like this works: > > http://www.foo.com/MicrosoftIsBetterThanSun.asp/foo/bar > You lost, this URL does not work in IIS ( 404 ).. Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega
