----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 7:41 AM Subject: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11 Http11Processor.java
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > > > > -- Degrade to the socket port on HTTP/1.0 requests with a > > > > Host header > > > > but no port number. > > > > > > > > > > > if you are under a nat, dafaulting to the socket port maybe no correct, > > > you could have tomcat in 8080, and the request would be redirected from > > > a 80 port, so if a host header with no port is present the correct > > > behavior should be to degrade to 80, without taking the socket port into > > > consideration, as the client can actually see it as 80.. so we must obey > > > the host header ever if present.. > > > > That's what is done. > > > > In HTTP/1.0, there's no host header defined in the spec, so a client using > > and expecting it to work is non-compliant. > > In HTTP/1.1, we always follow the host header, and ignore what the socket > > says, according to the spec. > > What we should do is respect the common practice ( the same as we do with > the encoding - where almost all browsers are broken and we deal with that ). > > From what I've seen, HTTP/1.0 browsers do send the port if it's not 80 - > and don't if the port is the default. If a Host is present we should use > the port number the same as in HTTP/1.1. > We do use the port number from the header, if the port is present. The current code handles HTTP/1.0 clients much the same way as Http10Interceptor does. Since the main HTTP/1.0 client that uses Tomcat is Watchdog, I don't really like enforcing the HTTP/1.1 behavior on HTTP/1.0 clients. > Costin > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
