You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2007/02/13 20:37:59 UTC
Enabling arbitrary/unregistered methods for 2.0
Here's a patch to allow the Script directive to handle
arbitrary (e.g., site-specific or experimental) methods.
Current 2.0 behaviour is 'if it's not something hard-coded
into me, it's rubbish and gets tossed.'
I notice that this functionality already exists in trunk,
so this is essentially a feature^Woversight-correction backport.
As to why I came across this.. I think there's a bug in PUT
handling on 2.0. Trying to track it down..
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Enabling arbitrary/unregistered methods for 2.0
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Any particular reason why you are not using the same code as in trunk
> / 2.2.x? The change on trunk was done in r98646
> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=98646)
Basically because I was hacking 2.0.59 for some debugging, and
this was the result.
> So I would propose that you just add it to the STATUS file of 2.0.x.
> Provided that you propose to backport r98646 (which works for 2.0.x)
> you have my +1 on it.
All right, I'll rework the patch into a backport of the implementation
from trunk, post it, and add it to the 2.0.x STATUS file.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Enabling arbitrary/unregistered methods for 2.0
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 02/13/2007 08:37 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Here's a patch to allow the Script directive to handle
> arbitrary (e.g., site-specific or experimental) methods.
> Current 2.0 behaviour is 'if it's not something hard-coded
> into me, it's rubbish and gets tossed.'
>
> I notice that this functionality already exists in trunk,
> so this is essentially a feature^Woversight-correction backport.
Any particular reason why you are not using the same code as in trunk / 2.2.x?
The change on trunk was done in r98646 (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=98646)
So I would propose that you just add it to the STATUS file of 2.0.x.
Provided that you propose to backport r98646 (which works for 2.0.x) you have my +1 on it.
Regards
Rüdiger