On 4/9/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:08:55 -0400
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/5/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:04:19 +0100
Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that the intended behaviour of the original
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:05:06AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I wonder why Error in ProxyErrorOverride doesn't match the meaning
of ap_is_HTTP_ERROR(), as in the attached patch (with doc).
Great, +1
1xx isn't something the user should see/react to either.
Forwarding 1xx responses is actually
On Apr 12, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:05:06AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
I wonder why Error in ProxyErrorOverride doesn't match the meaning
of ap_is_HTTP_ERROR(), as in the attached patch (with doc).
Great, +1
1xx isn't something the user should
On 4/5/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:04:19 +0100
Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that the intended behaviour of the original code was
intuitively correct, only = 400 errors should be overriden,
A redirection page is likely to include a redirected
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:08:55 -0400
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/5/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:04:19 +0100
Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that the intended behaviour of the original code was
intuitively correct, only = 400
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:34:31PM +0100, Stuart Children wrote:
Behaviour *has already been broken* from 2.0.x to 2.2.x - I've given
evidence of this. Our work systems heavily rely on the 2.0 behaviour.
Maybe someone else would like to repeat my tests - it's possible
it's not as simple as
Nick Kew wrote:
A redirection page is likely to include a redirected URL.
In a reverse proxy situation, that may need to be rewritten.
Conceivably, yes. Though I would maintain that *by default* people with
reverse-proxies would want/expect all their headers retained intact.
Use of
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Stuart Children
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:25
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ProxyErrorOverride and redirects (PR 39245)
Looks to me like a valid usage case for ProxyErrorOverride 3xx.
I don't see how it would achieve what
Hi
Plüm wrote:
I guess what Nick is talking about is the body of a redirect response.
A redirect response is often accompanied by a small HTML page that also
contains the redirect target as a hyperlink in the case that your client
does not understand the Location header. While ProxyPassReverse
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:48:58AM -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
There's a simple patch attached to the report which tells httpd to
keep its hands off ap_is_HTTPD_REDIRECT e.g. 3xx. Given the
description of ProxyErrorOverride I wouldn't think expectations would
be that 3xx responses would be
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:48:58 -0400
Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can any proxy gurus reconsider this bug status?
Hmmm, I have some recollection of debating this before,
presumably without reaching any consensus for change.
-if (conf-error_override == 0 ||
On 4/4/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:48:58 -0400
Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can any proxy gurus reconsider this bug status?
Hmmm, I have some recollection of debating this before,
presumably without reaching any consensus for change.
-if
On 4/4/07, Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but flipping the comparison might
make more sense based on the structure of context:
Scratch that of course,
--
Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:30:31PM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
Hmmm, I have some recollection of debating this before,
Yes, in the comments of the bug the OP linked.
presumably without reaching any consensus for change.
Well no-one's refuted (or replied to in any fashion) my last posts in
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:34:31 +0100
Stuart Children [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever happens, the documentation should be clarified. But to my
mind there is no doubt that I would not expect a redirect (or Not
Modified for that matter) to be considered an error.
The semantics of Error here are
On 4/4/07, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'd suggest is giving conf-error_override a numeric value
rather than an On/Off flag, and checking
r-status conf-error_override
That way we'll get existing behaviour with it set to 300 (so we
can alias On to that), and get the behaviour you
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:40:27PM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
Whatever happens, the documentation should be clarified. But to my
mind there is no doubt that I would not expect a redirect (or Not
Modified for that matter) to be considered an error.
The semantics of Error here are the same as
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:08:14 -0400
Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
new patch available that preserves the old behavior wrt 3xx responses
using the strategy quoted above -- no thought given to change in
behavior of 1xx responses
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39245
18 matches
Mail list logo
