You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> on 2011/09/01 01:06:13 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1163833 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > Author: sf
> > Date: Wed Aug 31 21:37:38 2011
> > New Revision: 1163833
> >
> >
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1163833&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Send a 206 response for a "Range: bytes=0-" request, even if 200
> > would be more efficient.
>
> 200 is a better response for caches as well. Why do we want to
> support this?
There seems to be at least one streaming client that gets confused by
this behaviour.
But maybe my commit was premature. If the change does not actually fix
the problem, I will revert.
RE: svn commit: r1163833 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 2. September 2011 15:43
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1163833 -
> /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Tim Bannister wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >>> On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >>>> The presumption here is that the client requests
> bytes=0- to begin the transmission, and provided it sees a
> 206, restarting somewhere in the stream results in aborting
> the connection and streaming bytes=n- from the restart point.
> Further testing should determine if this was the broken assumption.
> >>> Do we send the Accept-Ranges header field?
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#page-105
> >>
> >> Apache httpd 2.2.9 is sending this header in the Debian
> bug report at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825
> >
> > Then the client is broken and they also break intermediary
> > caches (most of which don't cache 206 responses) by performing
> > this stunt. We could add a version-specific browsermatch to do
> > the 206, but I'd prefer to just tell the client developers to
> > fix their code.
> >
>
> +1 from me.
>
>
I tend to +1 this as well.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: svn commit: r1163833 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 1, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Tim Bannister wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>> The presumption here is that the client requests bytes=0- to begin the transmission, and provided it sees a 206, restarting somewhere in the stream results in aborting the connection and streaming bytes=n- from the restart point. Further testing should determine if this was the broken assumption.
>>> Do we send the Accept-Ranges header field?
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#page-105
>>
>> Apache httpd 2.2.9 is sending this header in the Debian bug report at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825
>
> Then the client is broken and they also break intermediary
> caches (most of which don't cache 206 responses) by performing
> this stunt. We could add a version-specific browsermatch to do
> the 206, but I'd prefer to just tell the client developers to
> fix their code.
>
+1 from me.
Re: svn commit: r1163833 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Sep 1, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Tim Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> The presumption here is that the client requests bytes=0- to begin the transmission, and provided it sees a 206, restarting somewhere in the stream results in aborting the connection and streaming bytes=n- from the restart point. Further testing should determine if this was the broken assumption.
>> Do we send the Accept-Ranges header field?
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#page-105
>
> Apache httpd 2.2.9 is sending this header in the Debian bug report at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825
Then the client is broken and they also break intermediary
caches (most of which don't cache 206 responses) by performing
this stunt. We could add a version-specific browsermatch to do
the 206, but I'd prefer to just tell the client developers to
fix their code.
....Roy
Re: svn commit: r1163833 -
/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by Tim Bannister <is...@jellybaby.net>.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> The presumption here is that the client requests bytes=0- to begin the
>> transmission, and provided it sees a 206, restarting somewhere in the
>> stream results in aborting the connection and streaming bytes=n- from
>> the restart point. Further testing should determine if this was the
>> broken assumption.
>
> Do we send the Accept-Ranges header field?
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#page-105
Apache httpd 2.2.9 is sending this header in the Debian bug report at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825
Tim
Re: svn commit: r1163833 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 6:06 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>> Author: sf
>>>> Date: Wed Aug 31 21:37:38 2011
>>>> New Revision: 1163833
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1163833&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Send a 206 response for a "Range: bytes=0-" request, even if 200
>>>> would be more efficient.
>>>
>>> 200 is a better response for caches as well. Why do we want to
>>> support this?
>
> As explained to me by Stefan on irc...
>
>> There seems to be at least one streaming client that gets confused by
>> this behaviour.
>>
>> But maybe my commit was premature. If the change does not actually fix
>> the problem, I will revert.
>
> The presumption here is that the client requests bytes=0- to begin the
> transmission, and provided it sees a 206, restarting somewhere in the
> stream results in aborting the connection and streaming bytes=n- from
> the restart point. Further testing should determine if this was the
> broken assumption.
Do we send the Accept-Ranges header field?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#page-105
....Roy
Re: svn commit: r1163833 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 8/31/2011 6:06 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> Author: sf
>>> Date: Wed Aug 31 21:37:38 2011
>>> New Revision: 1163833
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1163833&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Send a 206 response for a "Range: bytes=0-" request, even if 200
>>> would be more efficient.
>>
>> 200 is a better response for caches as well. Why do we want to
>> support this?
As explained to me by Stefan on irc...
> There seems to be at least one streaming client that gets confused by
> this behaviour.
>
> But maybe my commit was premature. If the change does not actually fix
> the problem, I will revert.
The presumption here is that the client requests bytes=0- to begin the
transmission, and provided it sees a 206, restarting somewhere in the
stream results in aborting the connection and streaming bytes=n- from
the restart point. Further testing should determine if this was the
broken assumption.