Skip to content
  1. Aug 06, 2005
    • William A. Rowe Jr's avatar
      · 5bd7463a
      William A. Rowe Jr authored 
        As much as it pains me, seriously, it seems that reviewing the re-backport
  of this code was too illegible for review, so it seems we will need to
  re-review a fresh backport from httpd trunk.  

  Vetoed this patch as it does not follow RFC 2616.  Specifically;

   * it does not respect the T-E over the C-L header

   * it introduces edge cases that allow the administrator to override the
     C-L T-E elections, without enough information to prevent splitting the
     request body due to misaligned C-L's

   * it does not attempt to determine if there is a 'small request body'
     to prefer a legitimate C-L when that option might be available to us

  A revised patch combining Jeff's efforts and mine is available at:

    http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-2.0.54-proxy-request.patch

  for review, which can be applied to httpd-2.0.54 and now, branches/2.0.x,
  which addresses all of the issues cited above.

  Note that I do not consider the correction of protocol.c to strip the C-L
  where T-E is present to fulfill the need for a correct implementation
  in proxy_http.c; modules have too much flexibility to modify the headers
  before they hit this logic in the proxy request body handling.



git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x@230592 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
      5bd7463a
  3. Aug 05, 2005
  5. Aug 04, 2005
  7. Aug 03, 2005
  9. Aug 02, 2005
  11. Jul 28, 2005
  13. Jul 27, 2005
  15. Jul 19, 2005
  17. Jul 18, 2005
  19. Jul 17, 2005
  21. Jul 15, 2005
  23. Jul 14, 2005
  25. Jul 11, 2005
  27. Jul 08, 2005
  29. Jul 07, 2005
  31. Jul 06, 2005
  33. Jul 01, 2005
  35. Jun 28, 2005