You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> on 2009/01/07 20:34:29 UTC
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM, <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: niq
> Date: Fri Dec 26 19:53:32 2008
> New Revision: 729586
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729586&view=rev
> Log:
> CGI: return 504 (Gateway timeout) rather than 500 when a script
> times out before returning status line/headers.
> PR 42190
Any concern that canned message for 504 is going to cause confusion?
>> The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the upstream server.
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Nick Kew wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2009, at 10:34, Joe Orton wrote:
> > I don't see why 504 is more appropriate than 500 for this case.
> >
> > 504 is specifically defined for cases where the server is acting as a
> > gateway or proxy, which it is not here. (by the 2616 definitions of
> > gateway and proxy)
> >
> > joe
>
> One might consider the G of CGI a clue.
>
> The fact that the backend is (usually) an application running locally
> on the
> same machine as the webserver doesn't preclude the latter being a
> gateway.
>
> Come to think of it, CGI errors fall into more categories than we allow.
> A misconfiguration is indeed Internal Server Error. But a script
> that generates
> garbage is an External Server Error, and a 502 response would be in
> order.
> It would be no bad thing to point the finger of blame at broken scripts
> rather than confuse the authors with "internal" errors.
Generally spoken, the message ist mostly not seen by authors, but by users.
For *them* it's an opaque error (and should be), no matter what.
nd
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On 8 Jan 2009, at 10:34, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> I don't see why 504 is more appropriate than 500 for this case.
>
> 504 is specifically defined for cases where the server is acting as a
> gateway or proxy, which it is not here. (by the 2616 definitions of
> gateway and proxy)
>
> joe
One might consider the G of CGI a clue.
The fact that the backend is (usually) an application running locally
on the
same machine as the webserver doesn't preclude the latter being a
gateway.
Come to think of it, CGI errors fall into more categories than we allow.
A misconfiguration is indeed Internal Server Error. But a script
that generates
garbage is an External Server Error, and a 502 response would be in
order.
It would be no bad thing to point the finger of blame at broken scripts
rather than confuse the authors with "internal" errors.
--
Nick Kew
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES
server/util_script.c
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 02:34:29PM -0500, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM, <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Author: niq
> > Date: Fri Dec 26 19:53:32 2008
> > New Revision: 729586
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729586&view=rev
> > Log:
> > CGI: return 504 (Gateway timeout) rather than 500 when a script
> > times out before returning status line/headers.
> > PR 42190
>
> Any concern that canned message for 504 is going to cause confusion?
I don't see why 504 is more appropriate than 500 for this case.
504 is specifically defined for cases where the server is acting as a
gateway or proxy, which it is not here. (by the 2616 definitions of
gateway and proxy)
joe
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES
server/util_script.c
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On 7 Jan 2009, at 19:34, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM, <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: niq
>> Date: Fri Dec 26 19:53:32 2008
>> New Revision: 729586
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729586&view=rev
>> Log:
>> CGI: return 504 (Gateway timeout) rather than 500 when a script
>> times out before returning status line/headers.
>> PR 42190
>
> Any concern that canned message for 504 is going to cause confusion?
>
>>> The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the
>>> upstream server.
It's a fair cop, guv. Substituting
"The gateway did not receive a timely response
from the upstream server or application."
r732504
--
Nick Kew