There are now tests for both PR 32459 and PR 15207 in httpd-test's
t/modules/proxy.t; the former fails at the moment in 2.1 and the
latter
should fail instead if you flip the silly #define.
sorry - the PR 32459 test is in t/modules/rewrite.t not proxy.t
The below results in corrected behavior...
Please note that I'm not 100% happy, since the below hides
the meeting of isenc, or at least changes it... The real
fix is to also pass r-proxyreq (to determine type of
proxy request) as well as isenc, which should be renamed
something like forceenc to force the encoding
no matter what type of
Does not include the required removal of the unused FIX_15207
code snippets...
Index: modules/proxy/proxy_ajp.c
===
--- modules/proxy/proxy_ajp.c (revision 149512)
+++ modules/proxy/proxy_ajp.c (working copy)
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
Hi,
The last couple of weeks I've had to dive into mod_proxy. I'd
like to know what all the #ifdef FIX_15207 lines are all about
in mod_proxy.c. Keeping the #define breaks the crap out of
interaction with mod_rewrite for instance.
Furthermore the documentation of mod_proxy* explains a lot
of
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
The last couple of weeks I've had to dive into mod_proxy. I'd
like to know what all the #ifdef FIX_15207 lines are all about
in mod_proxy.c. Keeping the #define breaks the crap out of
interaction with mod_rewrite for instance.
I agree with you. Take a look at:
It's been on my table to attack the FIX_15207 fooishness,
but neither keeping the define nor commenting it out
results in expected, correct behavior :(...
On Feb 1, 2005, at 12:39 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
The last couple of weeks I've had to dive into mod_proxy. I'd
like to know what all the
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:03 PM
It's been on my table to attack the FIX_15207 fooishness, but neither
keeping the define nor commenting it out results in expected, correct
behavior :(...
For my specific use case (mod_rewrite,
On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Sander Striker wrote:
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:03 PM
It's been on my table to attack the FIX_15207 fooishness, but neither
keeping the define nor commenting it out results in expected, correct
behavior :(...
For
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 08:23:38PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:03 PM
It's been on my table to attack the FIX_15207 fooishness, but neither
keeping the define nor commenting it out results in expected,
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:24:43PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 08:23:38PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:03 PM
It's been on my table to attack the FIX_15207 fooishness, but neither
10 matches
Mail list logo
