Thanks for the update and viewpoint Sean. This week I have a release going on, so maybe next week I can get to submitting the patch.
-Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Legassick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [OT] infinite redirect detected... > In message <007301c1555f$d9c5af70$6401a8c0@keiths>, Peter Lynch > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Last I heard Sean Legassick was looking into modifying the logic a bit. > >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03422.html > > I did - although only very slightly. It now spots a case of broken > behaviour that was was slipping through the net. > > >...And here is a timely message I wrote today on another list: > > >Any code that is confusing, not particularly useful to the majority and > >causes more problems than it fixes I'll call evil, but I assure you its a > >lighthearted sort of way. :-) > > I'm not sure I'd go so far, almost every "problem" I've recently seen > with the code has been a case of a broken browser or intermediate proxy, > which is exactly what the code is designed to catch. Heiko's is a case > in point. > > >My thinking is that this particular code solves no common problem. Instead > >it is itself a hack for a very rare instance/combination of agent/container > >or at the very least some session tracking voodoo. Whoever encounters a > >problem stemming from this code not being in the core should be the one who > >adjusts their own code. > > I have some sympathy with this argument, I didn't put the code in > question in the Turbine servlet initially, but I did make several > amendments to fix it, given that it was there and it was felt useful. > You are correct that it's only purpose is to catch broken code. (Well, > and cosmetically it means that a cookie-enabled browser user never sees > the session ID URI wart). > > Given the problem that you've encountered with POST requests and URI > length overflow, I wouldn't particularly object to a patch to remove the > code, although Jon perhaps does... > > > I agree I should have not been the one hacking > >workarounds for this piece of code and sharing my findings more vigorously > >with others might have helped others. > > Yes - the POST/GET overflow is a serious bug. > > -- > Sean Legassick > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ek is 'n man: niks menslik is vreemd vir my nie > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
