You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> on 2002/07/03 21:15:56 UTC
Re: Christopher Williamson: URGENT: Bug/compatability issue in Apache 1.3.26
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 03:15:51PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> I can feel their pain..
Same here, I'm sympathetic. I think that it might be beneficial to
introduce an "Enable old behavior for backward-compatibility" mode, for
just these occasions where we have altered the behaviour of the server
to be more strict on protocol parsing.
-aaron
Re: Christopher Williamson: URGENT: Bug/compatability issue in Apache
1.3.26
Posted by di...@covalent.net.
> > controlled/hosting environment, it is unlikely that their
> > hosts will allow unchecked patches to be applied to the server.
>
> Also, we rather violated the principle of 'be strict in what you
> send, liberal in what you accept.' We suddenly became 'strict in
> what you accept' without warning or relief.
Good argument - you convinced me. +1 to go back to:
> Principle of Least Astonishment.
I am willing to code it (for 1.3 only) and willing to make it a config
directive (with the default to be liberal).
Dw
RE: Christopher Williamson: URGENT: Bug/compatability issue in Apache 1.3.26
Posted by Randy Terbush <ra...@terbush.org>.
>
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 01:19:53PM -0600, Jerry Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > Can't they offer a patch for their existing user base? I'm not
> > > unsympathetic, but introducing these kind of hacks seems like it
> > > would make the code grow more complicated with each
> change in server
> > > behavior.
> >
> > That might work in some cases, but if they are under a
> > controlled/hosting environment, it is unlikely that their
> hosts will
> > allow unchecked patches to be applied to the server.
>
> Also, we rather violated the principle of 'be strict in what
> you send, liberal in what you accept.' We suddenly became
> 'strict in what you accept' without warning or relief.
Agreed. +1 to revert this back to a more liberal accept mode.
Re: Christopher Williamson: URGENT: Bug/compatability issue in Apache
1.3.26
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 01:19:53PM -0600, Jerry Baker wrote:
> >
> > Can't they offer a patch for their existing user base? I'm not
> > unsympathetic, but introducing these kind of hacks seems like it
> > would make the code grow more complicated with each change in
> > server behavior.
>
> That might work in some cases, but if they are under a
> controlled/hosting environment, it is unlikely that their
> hosts will allow unchecked patches to be applied to the server.
Also, we rather violated the principle of 'be strict in what you
send, liberal in what you accept.' We suddenly became 'strict in
what you accept' without warning or relief.
> It just seems to me like one of those times
> where we inadvertently broke the principle
> of least surprise.
Principle of Least Astonishment.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Christopher Williamson: URGENT: Bug/compatability issue in Apache
1.3.26
Posted by Jerry Baker <je...@attbi.com>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> > Can't they offer a patch for their existing user base? I'm not
> > unsympathetic, but introducing these kind of hacks seems like it would
> > make the code grow more complicated with each change in server behavior.
>
> That might work in some cases, but if they are under a controlled/hosting
> environment, it is unlikely that their hosts will allow unchecked patches
> to be applied to the server. It just seems to me like one of those times
> where we inadvertently broke the principle of least surprise.
>
> -aaron
I meant a patch to their product, not Apache.
--
Jerry Baker
Re: Christopher Williamson: URGENT: Bug/compatability issue in Apache 1.3.26
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 01:19:53PM -0600, Jerry Baker wrote:
> > Same here, I'm sympathetic. I think that it might be beneficial to
> > introduce an "Enable old behavior for backward-compatibility" mode, for
> > just these occasions where we have altered the behaviour of the server
> > to be more strict on protocol parsing.
>
> Can't they offer a patch for their existing user base? I'm not
> unsympathetic, but introducing these kind of hacks seems like it would
> make the code grow more complicated with each change in server behavior.
That might work in some cases, but if they are under a controlled/hosting
environment, it is unlikely that their hosts will allow unchecked patches
to be applied to the server. It just seems to me like one of those times
where we inadvertently broke the principle of least surprise.
-aaron
Re: Christopher Williamson: URGENT: Bug/compatability issue in Apache
1.3.26
Posted by Jerry Baker <je...@attbi.com>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 03:15:51PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > I can feel their pain..
>
> Same here, I'm sympathetic. I think that it might be beneficial to
> introduce an "Enable old behavior for backward-compatibility" mode, for
> just these occasions where we have altered the behaviour of the server
> to be more strict on protocol parsing.
>
> -aaron
Can't they offer a patch for their existing user base? I'm not
unsympathetic, but introducing these kind of hacks seems like it would
make the code grow more complicated with each change in server behavior.
--
Jerry Baker