You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by rb...@apache.org on 2010/10/25 15:37:39 UTC
svn commit: r1027113 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod:
mod_usertrack.html.en mod_usertrack.xml
Author: rbowen
Date: Mon Oct 25 13:37:38 2010
New Revision: 1027113
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1027113&view=rev
Log:
Drag this doc 12 years into the future. Referring to what the module
used to do in 1.2 not only helps nobody, but it also screams that the
module is unmaintained.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.html.en
httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.xml
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.html.en
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.html.en?rev=1027113&r1=1027112&r2=1027113&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.html.en (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.html.en Mon Oct 25 13:37:38 2010
@@ -31,12 +31,8 @@
<tr><th><a href="module-dict.html#SourceFile">Source File:</a></th><td>mod_usertrack.c</td></tr></table>
<h3>Summary</h3>
- <p>Previous releases of Apache have included a module which
- generates a 'clickstream' log of user activity on a site using
- cookies. This was called the "cookies" module, mod_cookies. In
- Apache 1.2 and later this module has been renamed the "user
- tracking" module, mod_usertrack. This module has been
- simplified and new directives added.</p>
+ <p>Provides tracking of a user through your website via browser
+ cookies.</p>
</div>
<div id="quickview"><h3 class="directives">Directives</h3>
<ul id="toc">
@@ -49,68 +45,19 @@
<h3>Topics</h3>
<ul id="topics">
<li><img alt="" src="../images/down.gif" /> <a href="#logging">Logging</a></li>
-<li><img alt="" src="../images/down.gif" /> <a href="#cookiedate">2-digit or 4-digit dates for cookies?</a></li>
</ul></div>
<div class="top"><a href="#page-header"><img alt="top" src="../images/up.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="section">
<h2><a name="logging" id="logging">Logging</a></h2>
- <p>Previously, the cookies module (now the user tracking
- module) did its own logging, using the <code class="directive">CookieLog</code>
- directive. In this release, this module does no logging at all.
- Instead, a configurable log format file should be used to log
- user click-streams. This is possible because the logging module
- now allows multiple log files. The cookie itself is logged by
- using the text <code>%{cookie}n</code> in the log file format. For
- example:</p>
-<div class="example"><p><code>
-CustomLog logs/clickstream "%{cookie}n %r %t"
-</code></p></div>
-
- <p>For backward compatibility the configurable log module
- implements the old <code class="directive"><a href="../mod/mod_log_config.html#cookielog">CookieLog</a></code> directive, but this
- should be upgraded to the above <code class="directive"><a href="../mod/mod_log_config.html#customlog">CustomLog</a></code> directive. </p>
-</div><div class="top"><a href="#page-header"><img alt="top" src="../images/up.gif" /></a></div>
-<div class="section">
-<h2><a name="cookiedate" id="cookiedate">2-digit or 4-digit dates for cookies?</a></h2>
-
+ <p><code class="module"><a href="../mod/mod_usertrack.html">mod_usertrack</a></code> sets a cookie which can be logged
+ via <code class="module"><a href="../mod/mod_log_config.html">mod_log_config</a></code> configurable logging formats:</p>
- <p>(the following is from message
- <022701bda43d$9d32bbb0$1201a8c0@christian.office.sane.com>
- in the new-httpd archives) </p>
-<pre>
-From: "Christian Allen" <christian@sane.com>
-Subject: Re: Apache Y2K bug in mod_usertrack.c
-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:41:56 -0400
-
-Did some work with cookies and dug up some info that might be useful.
-
-True, Netscape claims that the correct format NOW is four digit dates, and
-four digit dates do in fact work... for Netscape 4.x (Communicator), that
-is. However, 3.x and below do NOT accept them. It seems that Netscape
-originally had a 2-digit standard, and then with all of the Y2K hype and
-probably a few complaints, changed to a four digit date for Communicator.
-Fortunately, 4.x also understands the 2-digit format, and so the best way to
-ensure that your expiration date is legible to the client's browser is to
-use 2-digit dates.
-
-However, this does not limit expiration dates to the year 2000; if you use
-an expiration year of "13", for example, it is interpreted as 2013, NOT
-1913! In fact, you can use an expiration year of up to "37", and it will be
-understood as "2037" by both MSIE and Netscape versions 3.x and up (not sure
-about versions previous to those). Not sure why Netscape used that
-particular year as its cut-off point, but my guess is that it was in respect
-to UNIX's 2038 problem. Netscape/MSIE 4.x seem to be able to understand
-2-digit years beyond that, at least until "50" for sure (I think they
-understand up until about "70", but not for sure).
-
-Summary: Mozilla 3.x and up understands two digit dates up until "37"
-(2037). Mozilla 4.x understands up until at least "50" (2050) in 2-digit
-form, but also understands 4-digit years, which can probably reach up until
-9999. Your best bet for sending a long-life cookie is to send it for some
-time late in the year "37".
-</pre>
+ <div class="example"><p><code>
+ LogFormat "%{Apache}n %r %t" usertrack<br />
+ CustomLog logs/clickstream.log usertrack
+ </code></p></div>
</div>
<div class="top"><a href="#page-header"><img alt="top" src="../images/up.gif" /></a></div>
@@ -130,7 +77,7 @@ time late in the year "37".
<p>The domain string <strong>must</strong> begin with a dot, and
<strong>must</strong> include at least one embedded dot. That is,
- <code>.example.com</code> is legal, but <code>foo.example.com</code> and
+ <code>.example.com</code> is legal, but <code>www.example.com</code> and
<code>.com</code> are not.</p>
<div class="note">Most browsers in use today will not allow cookies to be set
@@ -142,7 +89,7 @@ time late in the year "37".
<code>.com</code>, and allowing such cookies may be a security
risk. Thus, if you are under a two-part top level domain, you
should still use your actual domain, as you would with any other top
- level domain (for example <code>.foo.co.uk</code>).
+ level domain (for example <code>.example.co.uk</code>).
</div>
</div>
@@ -217,8 +164,9 @@ time late in the year "37".
<p>Not all clients can understand all of these formats, but you
should use the newest one that is generally acceptable to your
- users' browsers. At the time of writing, most browsers only fully
- support <code>CookieStyle Netscape</code>.</p>
+ users' browsers. At the time of writing, most browsers support all
+ three of these formats, with <code>Cookie2</code> being the
+ preferred format.</p>
</div>
<div class="top"><a href="#page-header"><img alt="top" src="../images/up.gif" /></a></div>
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.xml?rev=1027113&r1=1027112&r2=1027113&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.xml (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_usertrack.xml Mon Oct 25 13:37:38 2010
@@ -30,75 +30,21 @@
<identifier>usertrack_module</identifier>
<summary>
- <p>Previous releases of Apache have included a module which
- generates a 'clickstream' log of user activity on a site using
- cookies. This was called the "cookies" module, mod_cookies. In
- Apache 1.2 and later this module has been renamed the "user
- tracking" module, mod_usertrack. This module has been
- simplified and new directives added.</p>
+ <p>Provides tracking of a user through your website via browser
+ cookies.</p>
</summary>
<section id="logging">
<title>Logging</title>
- <p>Previously, the cookies module (now the user tracking
- module) did its own logging, using the <directive>CookieLog</directive>
- directive. In this release, this module does no logging at all.
- Instead, a configurable log format file should be used to log
- user click-streams. This is possible because the logging module
- now allows multiple log files. The cookie itself is logged by
- using the text <code>%{cookie}n</code> in the log file format. For
- example:</p>
-<example>
-CustomLog logs/clickstream "%{cookie}n %r %t"
-</example>
-
- <p>For backward compatibility the configurable log module
- implements the old <directive
- module="mod_log_config">CookieLog</directive> directive, but this
- should be upgraded to the above <directive
- module="mod_log_config">CustomLog</directive> directive. </p>
-</section>
-
-<section id="cookiedate">
-<title>2-digit or 4-digit dates for cookies?</title>
+ <p><module>mod_usertrack</module> sets a cookie which can be logged
+ via <module>mod_log_config</module> configurable logging formats:</p>
- <p>(the following is from message
- <022701bda43d$9d32bbb0$1201a8c0@christian.office.sane.com>
- in the new-httpd archives) </p>
-<pre>
-From: "Christian Allen" <christian@sane.com>
-Subject: Re: Apache Y2K bug in mod_usertrack.c
-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:41:56 -0400
-
-Did some work with cookies and dug up some info that might be useful.
-
-True, Netscape claims that the correct format NOW is four digit dates, and
-four digit dates do in fact work... for Netscape 4.x (Communicator), that
-is. However, 3.x and below do NOT accept them. It seems that Netscape
-originally had a 2-digit standard, and then with all of the Y2K hype and
-probably a few complaints, changed to a four digit date for Communicator.
-Fortunately, 4.x also understands the 2-digit format, and so the best way to
-ensure that your expiration date is legible to the client's browser is to
-use 2-digit dates.
-
-However, this does not limit expiration dates to the year 2000; if you use
-an expiration year of "13", for example, it is interpreted as 2013, NOT
-1913! In fact, you can use an expiration year of up to "37", and it will be
-understood as "2037" by both MSIE and Netscape versions 3.x and up (not sure
-about versions previous to those). Not sure why Netscape used that
-particular year as its cut-off point, but my guess is that it was in respect
-to UNIX's 2038 problem. Netscape/MSIE 4.x seem to be able to understand
-2-digit years beyond that, at least until "50" for sure (I think they
-understand up until about "70", but not for sure).
-
-Summary: Mozilla 3.x and up understands two digit dates up until "37"
-(2037). Mozilla 4.x understands up until at least "50" (2050) in 2-digit
-form, but also understands 4-digit years, which can probably reach up until
-9999. Your best bet for sending a long-life cookie is to send it for some
-time late in the year "37".
-</pre>
+ <example>
+ LogFormat "%{Apache}n %r %t" usertrack<br />
+ CustomLog logs/clickstream.log usertrack
+ </example>
</section>
@@ -122,7 +68,7 @@ time late in the year "37".
<p>The domain string <strong>must</strong> begin with a dot, and
<strong>must</strong> include at least one embedded dot. That is,
- <code>.example.com</code> is legal, but <code>foo.example.com</code> and
+ <code>.example.com</code> is legal, but <code>www.example.com</code> and
<code>.com</code> are not.</p>
<note>Most browsers in use today will not allow cookies to be set
@@ -134,7 +80,7 @@ time late in the year "37".
<code>.com</code>, and allowing such cookies may be a security
risk. Thus, if you are under a two-part top level domain, you
should still use your actual domain, as you would with any other top
- level domain (for example <code>.foo.co.uk</code>).
+ level domain (for example <code>.example.co.uk</code>).
</note>
</usage>
</directivesynopsis>
@@ -222,8 +168,9 @@ time late in the year "37".
<p>Not all clients can understand all of these formats, but you
should use the newest one that is generally acceptable to your
- users' browsers. At the time of writing, most browsers only fully
- support <code>CookieStyle Netscape</code>.</p>
+ users' browsers. At the time of writing, most browsers support all
+ three of these formats, with <code>Cookie2</code> being the
+ preferred format.</p>
</usage>
</directivesynopsis>