You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> on 2004/09/17 19:07:14 UTC
Bug #31228
Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta
encoding, and it'd be nice if people didn't have to apply a patch to
Apache in order to use it.
Thanks,
-garrett
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
> Just a reminder to make sure this doesn't fall off the radar ;-)
yeah, sorry about that. call it day job encroachment :)
here's a patch against current HEAD (trunk?). I'll give it a day or two to
marinate and commit before the week is out if there are no complaints.
fwiw, the perl-framework tests look ok, and I've double-checked the slot
accounting.
--Geoff
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
Geoffrey Young wrote:
>>>So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than "i'm iffy" and "is there any
>>>reason not to add it"?
>>
>>
>>+1 (concept; implementation not verified)
>
>
> here too. is this the most recent patch:
>
> http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12746
>
> ?
>
> if so, I'll try and review the implementation early next week and, save any
> objections, commit it to 2.1 if it looks ok to everyone.
Just a reminder to make sure this doesn't fall off the radar ;-)
-garrett
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
Geoffrey Young wrote:
>>>So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than "i'm iffy" and "is there any
>>>reason not to add it"?
>>
>>
>>+1 (concept; implementation not verified)
>
>
> here too. is this the most recent patch:
>
> http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12746
>
> ?
>
> if so, I'll try and review the implementation early next week and, save any
> objections, commit it to 2.1 if it looks ok to everyone.
Yes, I believe that is the current version of the patch, although I
haven't tried to apply it to a current version of the httpd source, so
it's possible there have been changes to that part of the tree in the
meantime. If you have any trouble with it please let me know.
Thanks,
-garrett
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
>>So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than "i'm iffy" and "is there any
>>reason not to add it"?
>
>
> +1 (concept; implementation not verified)
here too. is this the most recent patch:
http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12746
?
if so, I'll try and review the implementation early next week and, save any
objections, commit it to 2.1 if it looks ok to everyone.
--Geoff
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:37:43 -0500, Garrett Rooney
<ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Garrett Rooney wrote:
> >
> >>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
> >>><ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
> >>>>
> >>>>It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta
> >>>>encoding,
> >>>>and it'd be nice if people didn't have to apply a patch to Apache in
> >>>>order
> >>>>to use it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>FWIW, I looked at it the other night and I'm mildly iffy on adding it.
> >>
> >>
> >>Any particular reason? It seems like providing support for the response
> >>code specified in the RFC would only help encourage people to actually
> >>implement support for it in Apache, which seems like a good thing to me...
> >
> >
> > provided that garrett's patch is technically the correct way to add a new
> > status code to apache, and that RFC3229 went through the proper motions to
> > capture exclusive use of 226 within http, I don't see any reason why 226
> > shouldn't be added in 2.1.
>
> This sort of got dropped on the ground once Justin told me how to make
> my module work without explicit support for the status code in the core,
> and it's totally my fault for not pressing it, but I'd still like to get
> this in or to hear what the reasoning for not including it is.
>
> So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than "i'm iffy" and "is there any
> reason not to add it"?
+1 (concept; implementation not verified)
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
>
>>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
>>><ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
>>>>
>>>>It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
>>>>
>>>>I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta
>>>>encoding,
>>>>and it'd be nice if people didn't have to apply a patch to Apache in
>>>>order
>>>>to use it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>FWIW, I looked at it the other night and I'm mildly iffy on adding it.
>>
>>
>>Any particular reason? It seems like providing support for the response
>>code specified in the RFC would only help encourage people to actually
>>implement support for it in Apache, which seems like a good thing to me...
>
>
> provided that garrett's patch is technically the correct way to add a new
> status code to apache, and that RFC3229 went through the proper motions to
> capture exclusive use of 226 within http, I don't see any reason why 226
> shouldn't be added in 2.1.
This sort of got dropped on the ground once Justin told me how to make
my module work without explicit support for the status code in the core,
and it's totally my fault for not pressing it, but I'd still like to get
this in or to hear what the reasoning for not including it is.
So, uhh, ping? Any comments other than "i'm iffy" and "is there any
reason not to add it"?
-garrett
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>.
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> --On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
>> <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
>>>
>>> It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
>>>
>>> I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta
>>> encoding,
>>> and it'd be nice if people didn't have to apply a patch to Apache in
>>> order
>>> to use it.
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I looked at it the other night and I'm mildly iffy on adding it.
>
>
> Any particular reason? It seems like providing support for the response
> code specified in the RFC would only help encourage people to actually
> implement support for it in Apache, which seems like a good thing to me...
provided that garrett's patch is technically the correct way to add a new
status code to apache, and that RFC3229 went through the proper motions to
capture exclusive use of 226 within http, I don't see any reason why 226
shouldn't be added in 2.1.
--Geoff
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
> <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>
>> Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
>>
>> It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
>>
>> I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta encoding,
>> and it'd be nice if people didn't have to apply a patch to Apache in
>> order
>> to use it.
>
>
> FWIW, I looked at it the other night and I'm mildly iffy on adding it.
Any particular reason? It seems like providing support for the response
code specified in the RFC would only help encourage people to actually
implement support for it in Apache, which seems like a good thing to me...
> However, I believe you can do the following instead at the end of your
> handler:
>
> r->status_line = "IM Used";
> return 226;
>
> So, you shouldn't *need* a patch. HTH. -- justin
Well, I'm not actually writing a handler, I'm writing a filter, so I
don't seem to have a place to do a "return 226", at least not as far as
I can tell (It is always possible that I'm missunderstanding things
though, I have little experience writing such things). Setting
status_line to "IM Used" doesn't seem to do quite what I'd expect either
(setting r->status = 226 and r->status_line = "IM Used" just caused my
response to be sent back chunked, no clue why). Setting r->status_line
to "226 IM Used" does seem to do what I want though, so for now I'm
doing that.
Thanks,
-garrett
Re: Bug #31228
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
<ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
>
> It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
>
> I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta encoding,
> and it'd be nice if people didn't have to apply a patch to Apache in order
> to use it.
FWIW, I looked at it the other night and I'm mildly iffy on adding it.
However, I believe you can do the following instead at the end of your handler:
r->status_line = "IM Used";
return 226;
So, you shouldn't *need* a patch. HTH. -- justin