-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Mark,
On 10/15/17 6:54 PM, Mark O'Donohue wrote: > Hi > > Just wanted an opinion on this before I logged a bug report against > mod_jk.c > > > Running our proxied request via mod_jk we are seeing the returned > content-type being changing to all lowercase: > > eg: > > Content-Type: application/xxx.yyyy.dddd+*JSON*; charset=utf-8 > > to: > > Content-Type: application/xxx.yyyy.dddd+*json*; charset=utf-8 > > > We thought this was tomcat at first, but turns out to be mod_jk.c > that is the cause : > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/jk/trunk/native/apache-2.0/mod_ jk.c > > > > > *for* *(*h *=* 0*;* h *<* num_of_headers*;* h*++)* *{* > > *if* *(!*strcasecmp*(*header_names*[*h*],* "Content-type"*))* *{* > > char ***tmp *=* apr_pstrdup*(*r*->*pool*,* header_values*[*h *]);* > > ap_content_type_tolower*(*tmp*);* > > /* It should be done like this in Apache 2.0 */ > > /* This way, Apache 2.0 will be able to set the output filter */ > > /* and it make jk useable with deflate using */ > > /* AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html */ > > ap_set_content_type*(*r*,* tmp*);* > > *}* > > > > Now on the validity of upper vs lower - it seems a little bit of a > grey area: > > https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/4_Content-Type.html > > > > The type, subtype, and parameter names are not case sensitive. For > example, TEXT, Text, and TeXt are all equivalent. Parameter values > are normally case sensitive, but certain parameters are interpreted > to be case- insensitive, depending on the intended use. (For > example, multipart boundaries are case-sensitive, but the "access- > type" for message/External-body is not case-sensitive.) > > > > > > But as a proxy we dont have an opinion - we just want to pass on > what we get ! > > > Also if we run the request via mod_proxy/*mod_proxy_ajp.c* instead > then the returned content-type header is *not *changed. > > So should I open a bug against mod_jk for it? I think the only bug here is that mod_jk is wasting time rewriting a header that doesn't need to be modified. But I see this strictly as a performance problem and not as a spec-violation. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEMmKgYcQvxMe7tcJcHPApP6U8pFgFAlno1p8ACgkQHPApP6U8 pFiUPw/+I4tz1k2pHGC5qW+f8e0+A3gEdfu4StL3b9Uwu5ci/eo3L0Z7oe7t2vXp 7ctifUCs8Ns8wGYj5QEwaR/8NKlgCavscG+jMzFdffsmszh+hPjzUa72q0IYKnHU 6Qc25xqj1Ru2/Iz1SV7t13T+t1ctfdE5wnB2RDC53F1ldA54/fwyLf2ActxdMW+K XEH+9A+q203WriFIP4Ie1qD4M/x/7J57MBjp3dkbspfR2hmwGvESljXBuAKuDw8N xpOt2bdXbnqNdHpVtOiHQxvyG9n4Vy69+/8Gd/fvpMsWoH/nJOG99xQ3IIsHieUG ulLtn2Bb4RIgwGXCnV2cK0SCMPKoyYHMoFQ7fPQIbP3lXqhFtHsrYuGkzZ0ylk08 jqmV3e2VlB70Gd0iXUIhKZLEN1oWirUFZU8behhP75DWKWEAqZA1ThFBk9naG1RX kLPWpVugB5Q1uLZulK34f5rRBmd85qceIYOfz30wNaT5pHfyumb7/MYoKE9l03lp JcUg/UbG9XgfsQsC/vH/sSzCCFk89wtUgIqi9VjXQ4uomsJiutzmiyPvtVAYpcdI v7qEFvvyVvXVuhU7xaygyAsLTQq4s/gHJ0Fx11Nx91iOCDwDEKLUkQZ3ZDcgQglI Qjy4fcxeM4f7legRH7jhccUptzJZovbdOgMM1TCU8tiIIWFE2EQ= =UpzH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
