+1 for this two patches..
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviado el: jueves 26 de julio de 2001 22:17
> Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Asunto: RE: Date in HTTP headers
>
>
> >First at all i'm +1 on adding Date header aswell ( is on my todo list
> >for 3 months now ;)
>
> Done, I attached 2 diff one for TC 3.3 CVS and one against TC 3.2.3.
> Note the little hack to speedup date generation in rfc1123 format :)
>
> PS: TC 3.2.3 expose Servlet-Engine but not TC 3.3. What about adding
> this one also ? We won't loose to many time, especially for those of
> us using Ajp12/Ajp13 :)
>
I dont understand my friend, what do you want to say in that
PostScriptum ?
> >But just a comment: RFC2616 is the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
> >HTTP/1.1" RFC, AFAIK HTTP 1.0 doesnt have a real RFC, well
> it has one,
> >the RFC1945 but this as the RFC itself recognizes is not a real RFC (
> >one of obligated honoring ) it is more a set of comments and
> >indications
> >and advices for compatibility than a complete RFC.. notably
> in RFC1945
> >there is no support for Modified-Since header we are sending now i.e.
> >and a limited Host: Header support
>
> HTTP 1.1 support for TC 3.2.3 / 3.3 are in my project list
> but since TC
> 3.2.3
> is feature freeze, it will be only for TC 3.3. But after
> ajp14 completion...
>
Mine too since 3 or4 months ago, i have started to do it a couple of
times, nothing so far , :(
> PS: I implemented the same code that in TC 3.2.x, ie Date
> header is set
> only if the user didn't allready set the Date header. Did it meet spec
> or should we replace the user Date header by the Http
> connector computed one
> ?
>
>
For me it's ok, although not digged in the spec to say that ;)
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
