You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net> on 2012/06/21 20:19:48 UTC
Empty cookies [Was Re: libapreq2 co-maintainer]
On 20/06/2012 14:19, Thomas Busch wrote:
> On 20/06/2012 13:35, Thomas Busch wrote:
>> The reason I'm asking is that the following bug
>>>
>>> https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=69866
>>>
>>> hasn't been solved and is still causing Internal Server Error's on
>>> a lot of mod_perl installation.
>>>
>> I see you've got a suggested patch there, so there's a good chance that
>> someone will pick that up - if noone does it by the weekend, I'll try to
>> pick it up myself.
>>
Joe, you seemingly addressed this in r748782 and then intentionally put
it back in r748790 - you touched the exact test case which would deal
with the a cookie that looked like "Cookie: foo=bar;foo2=test;blabla".
Any recollections of why you put it back?
Issac
Re: Empty cookies [Was Re: libapreq2 co-maintainer]
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
apreq does the right thing now by both throwing an
exception (indicating a malformed cookie) and parsing
the header correctly. This is a very old subject:
Thomas should be using eval like so:
$apreq = APR::Request::Apache2->handle($r);
my $jar = eval { $apreq->jar };
$jar = $@->jar if $@;
...
IOW not a bug, please don't fix.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>
> To: joes@apache.org
> Cc: Thomas Busch <tb...@cpan.org>; apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:19 PM
> Subject: Empty cookies [Was Re: libapreq2 co-maintainer]
>
> On 20/06/2012 14:19, Thomas Busch wrote:
>> On 20/06/2012 13:35, Thomas Busch wrote:
>>> The reason I'm asking is that the following bug
>>>>
>>>> https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=69866
>>>>
>>>> hasn't been solved and is still causing Internal Server
> Error's on
>>>> a lot of mod_perl installation.
>>>>
>>> I see you've got a suggested patch there, so there's a good
> chance that
>>> someone will pick that up - if noone does it by the weekend, I'll
> try to
>>> pick it up myself.
>>>
>
> Joe, you seemingly addressed this in r748782 and then intentionally put
> it back in r748790 - you touched the exact test case which would deal
> with the a cookie that looked like "Cookie: foo=bar;foo2=test;blabla".
>
> Any recollections of why you put it back?
>
> Issac
>