On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, neal wrote:
> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:11:44 -0800 > From: neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tomcat Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat > > So, in this scenario .. if a url without a directory is given and without a > trailign slash, the redirect would not occur? That would fix this issue. > I could certainly get behind that. :) > You will change that opinion as soon as you realize that relative URIs in your welcome pages do not work any more :-). > > "if the final element of the path is a "directory" (or a context) without a > trailing > slash, redirect to the same path with a trailing slash. But if the path > is given with a trailing slash, forward to the welcome file." > This is the right answer, IMHO. It also includes the use case where you just say: http://www.mycompany.com which is (essentially) a request for the welcome file of the top-level directory of the ROOT webapp. This should be redirected to: http://www.mycompany.com/ just like Apache does it, and then forwarded to the welcome file from there, so that relative URIs still work as expected. Craig > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:36 PM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat > > > > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Turner, John wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:19:47 -0500 > > From: "Turner, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat > > > > > > OK, so what's the rationalization for the 302? Can you shed some light on > > that? > > Consider a typical welcome page that includes: > > <body> > ... > <img src="logo.jpg"> > ... > </body> > > For a context path "/myapp", consider what happens when I type > "http://www.mycompany.com/myapp"; in to the browser. With a forward, the > relative reference to logo.jpg gets resolved "wrong" (from the user's > perspective) because it's the *browser* that resolves it. Want proof? Go > back about three years when Tomcat 3.0 and 3.1 behaved this way, and "why > don't images in a welcome page work" was a FAQ on TOMCAT-USER :-). > > Changing to the current behavior was the result of a bug report about > this, that had widespread support from the user community at the time. > > Assuming that we can be compatible with the servlet spec language (for > 2.4, that means convince the EG to clarify it this way), I think the right > answer is the one proposed in the TOMCAT-DEV discussion -- if the final > element of the path is a "directory" (or a context) without a trailing > slash, redirect to the same path with a trailing slash. But if the path > is given with a trailing slash, forward to the welcome file. > > This still screws up relative references for people that use wierd welcome > file paths like "foo/bar.html", but will work for the majority -- and it > seems to be the way that Apache and other web servers deal with the issue. > > > > > John > > Craig > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:07 PM > > To: Tomcat Users List > > Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Turner, John wrote: > > > > > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:33:50 -0500 > > > From: "Turner, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: RewriteRules and Standalone Tomcat > > > > > > > > > No problem, glad to help. Remember, Tomcat is not a HTTP server. It > > > supports HTTP as a matter of convenience. You can run Tomcat all day > > > long without a HTTP or HTTPS connector, and as far as I know, there is > > > nothing in the spec that says Tomcat has to meet certain requirements > > > for HTTP or HTTPS. CoyoteConnector is HTTP/1.1 compliant, but again, > > > that's more for convenience and compatibility than a design > > > requirement. > > > > > > > Auoting from Servlet Specification, Version 2.3, Section 1.2: > > > > All servlet containers must support HTTP as a protocol > > for requests and responses, but additional request/response > > based protocols (such as HTTPS (HTTP over SSL) may be > > supported. The minimum required version of the HTTP > > specification that a container must implement is HTTP/1.0. > > It is strongly suggested that containers implement the > > HTTP/1.1 specification as well. > > > > So, a servlet container (which is either Tomcat standalone or > > Tomcat+Apache) *must* support HTTP. > > > > > I'm sure the folks on tomcat-dev could shed some more light on it. > > > > > > > Of course, this statement does nothing to resolve the issue of what the > > right welcome file behavior is -- the HTTP spec is silent about that :-). > > > > > John > > > > Craig > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > --- > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002 > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002 > > > > > > -- > > 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]> > > > -- > 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]>
