You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> on 2001/01/08 23:39:40 UTC
more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
OK, I've been working with wrowe and jim on the byteranges problem so
that we can get 1.3.15 out, and we think we have a satisfactory patch
now.
This patch includes a rewrite of the parsing code and a reorganization
of the code that calls it to make it clearer that it implements what
the RFC says. With the patch we now implement the syntax properly and
deal with unsatisfiable requests, which we did not do before.
The patch is available from http://apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.patch.fanf
and I've attached the patch and the new version of code to this email
for ease of reading. I'll also update the STATUS file.
Reviews and testing, please, so we can get the +1s :-)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at
" ``Well, let's go down and find out who's grave it is.''
``How?'' ``By going down and finding out!'' "
Re: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> wrote:
>Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> wrote:
>>
>>The patch is available from http://apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.patch.fanf
>>and I've attached the patch and the new version of code to this email
>>for ease of reading. I'll also update the STATUS file.
>
>Because of a number of requests I've also created a patch against 1.3.14.
>http://www.apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.c.1.3.14.patch
And you can now also get a ready-patched copy of the file from
http://www.apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.c
I'm getting more feedback now which is nice :-) We still need some
proper reviews.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at
" ``Well, let's go down and find out who's grave it is.''
``How?'' ``By going down and finding out!'' "
Re: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> wrote:
>
>The patch is available from http://apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.patch.fanf
>and I've attached the patch and the new version of code to this email
>for ease of reading. I'll also update the STATUS file.
Because of a number of requests I've also created a patch against 1.3.14.
http://www.apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.c.1.3.14.patch
Any feedback is welcome, from users as well as developers :-)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at
"Plan 9 deals with the resurrection of the dead."
Re: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> wrote:
>
>The patch is available from http://apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.patch.fanf
>and I've attached the patch and the new version of code to this email
>for ease of reading. I'll also update the STATUS file.
I should remember which MUA I'm using...
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at
"You realize there's a government directive stating
that there is no such thing as a flying saucer?"
Re: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com> wrote:
>> Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> wrote:
>> >
>> >Reviews and testing, please, so we can get the +1s :-)
>>
>> Pretty-please?
>
>Is it significant that r->range gets nuked by parse_byterange? Perhaps parse
>on a copy of r->range?
Check the old code. Handlers call ap_each_byterange to get the details
of each range that must be returned to the client; ap_each_byterange
calls internal_byterange with r_range pointing to r->range;
internal_byterange calls ap_getword to get each comma-separated range;
ap_getword modifies r->range.
Thanks for bringing this up; I had treated r->range as being owned by
the byteranges code so I could do what I liked with it, but it turns
out that although the new parsing code works in a completely different
way r->range should AFAICT end up pointing to the same stuff.
The API of the new code should be exactly the same as the old code.
The support for returning 416 errors has been added in a backwardly-
compatible way -- wrowe came up with that cleverness.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at
"Plan 9 deals with the resurrection of the dead."
Re: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> wrote:
> >
> >Reviews and testing, please, so we can get the +1s :-)
>
> Pretty-please?
>
Is it significant that r->range gets nuked by parse_byterange? Perhaps parse
on a copy of r->range?
Bill
Re: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:59:48AM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
> Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> wrote:
> >
> >Reviews and testing, please, so we can get the +1s :-)
>
> Pretty-please?
>From Source review, looks *very* good. +0 for now.
How about makong a list of test cases with indication of fail/pass?
__Byte-Range__ _Result_
"" fail
"1-2" pass
"1,2" fail
etc?
Martin
--
<Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> | Fujitsu Siemens
<ma...@apache.org> | 81730 Munich, Germany
Re: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at> wrote:
>
>Reviews and testing, please, so we can get the +1s :-)
Pretty-please?
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at
"If I didn't see it with my own eyes I would never have believed it!"
RE: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: Tony Finch [mailto:dot@dotat.at]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:40 PM
>The patch is available from http://apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.patch.fanf
>and I've attached the patch and the new version of code to this email
>for ease of reading. I'll also update the STATUS file.
must be light reading (at least the attached version) but
I could have sworn it was a really -big- thing :-)
Re: more in the 1.3.X byteranges saga
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@covalent.net>.
Nice code; and it applies, it runs and even seems to do what it should
with Mac's acrobat. +0 for now. (I'll give you a +1 after some more real
testing.
Dw
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> OK, I've been working with wrowe and jim on the byteranges problem so
> that we can get 1.3.15 out, and we think we have a satisfactory patch
> now.
>
> This patch includes a rewrite of the parsing code and a reorganization
> of the code that calls it to make it clearer that it implements what
> the RFC says. With the patch we now implement the syntax properly and
> deal with unsatisfiable requests, which we did not do before.
>
> The patch is available from http://apache.org/~fanf/http_protocol.patch.fanf
> and I've attached the patch and the new version of code to this email
> for ease of reading. I'll also update the STATUS file.
>
> Reviews and testing, please, so we can get the +1s :-)
>
> Tony.
>