Tagged 2.0

2004-08-31 Thread Sander Striker
Hi, I've tagged 2.0 as STRIKER_2_0_51_RC1. I'll roll a tarball later on today for testing. Sander

Re: [proxy] New implementation ready for testing

2004-08-31 Thread Henri Gomez
Graham Leggett wrote: Mladen Turk wrote: Since we are (Henri and myself, not sure for JeanFrederic) not httpd commiters, I'm not sure how the proxy_ajp will get maintained, but we can always send patches :) I'm quite happy to maintain the code, and can chase up any patches you send through in

Smart filtering and mod_filter

2004-08-31 Thread Nick Kew
I've made some further updates both to the code and documentation since posting. One change is to support inserting a harness anywhere in the filter chain. This addresses the point Graham raised about having two separate mechanisms: it means the old mechanism can be entirely replaced (provided

Re: Bug 18388: cookies

2004-08-31 Thread Nick Kew
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Geoffrey Young wrote: [replying to my words - largely chopped] Perhaps a better approach to 304 headers would be to explicitly exclude entity headers as enumerated in rfc2616, rather than explicitly include non-entity headers? That means the default for proprietary

Re: Bug 18388: cookies

2004-08-31 Thread Jim Jagielski
Personally, I think that if Roy said that it would cause non-compliance then, unless he changed his mind, that's good enough for me to veto any change that would add Set-Cookie. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL

Re: Bug 18388: cookies

2004-08-31 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: Personally, I think that if Roy said that it would cause non-compliance then, unless he changed his mind, that's good enough for me to veto any change that would add Set-Cookie. I strongly agree. Roy? --Cliff

Re: Bug 18388: cookies

2004-08-31 Thread Roy T. Fielding
[sent this yesterday, but it bounced] personally, I tend to see it more from doug and nick's perspective and would be inclined to fix a long-standing issue that never made sense to me, but roy wrote the book and has unique insight here, so... Umm, not really -- cookies are just broken by design.

Programming a timeout into Apache

2004-08-31 Thread Wallace, Brian S.
Hi: I am adding code to Apache 2.0 to provide a timeout for all authenticated content. I have everything working, but because browsers use cached credentials, I cannot be sure that the user re-authenticated or the browser re-authenticated. I change the realm name and do a

Re: Programming a timeout into Apache

2004-08-31 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Wallace, Brian S. wrote: Are there any tricks that can be done like telling the browser to clear the password cache Not that I know. And this list is mrore for the development of apache so not sure if this is the right place. or have the browser return the realm name

Re: Programming a timeout into Apache

2004-08-31 Thread Joshua Slive
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Wallace, Brian S. wrote: Are there any tricks that can be done like telling the browser to clear the password cache or have the browser return the realm name that it's authenticating to? Any other ideas or approaches to this problem would be appreciated. The are many tricks

RE: Programming a timeout into Apache

2004-08-31 Thread Wallace, Brian S.
Thanks to all, I will move the discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Joshua Slive [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Programming a timeout into Apache On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Wallace, Brian S. wrote: Are

Re: Bug 18388: cookies

2004-08-31 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 11:53 AM 8/31/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Jim Jagielski wrote: Personally, I think that if Roy said that it would cause non-compliance then, unless he changed his mind, that's good enough for me to veto any change that would add Set-Cookie. I strongly agree. Roy? As