At Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:24:10 +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > > ;;;; raw-handler.scm > > ; handler to emulate chicken3-style request-handler > > [..code snipped..] > > I don't know, but that doesn't look complete.
> Yeah, that'd just be a simple wrapper layer around it. It's incomplete. I just wanted to ask you if it's something valuable to others. > > I'm creating 302 response without specifying the host. > > Sorry, that's not allowed (see RFC2616, 14.30). I know, "everyone > does it", but it's actually invalid. Yeah, I think I've read that some time back. > Anyway, why would you want to do that at all? The current request URI > is already absolute by default, and having the host in there doesn't > hurt, does it? I tell you why, and maybe you have an idea for workaround. I've started my project with http-server (or spiffy) as a standalone http server, however I now have to run on a server that runs Apache and only port 80 is available. Hence, I let Apache forward http requests to my standalone server (Reverse Proxy). If I use the absolute path, it becomes something like http://127.0.0.1:8888/..... which doesn't make sense. One restriction is that I don't want to include the server hostname in scm. One solution would be to use SGI, which is not ready in chicken4. > I went through quite some trouble to get it working this way precisely > because of the requirement in the RFC that the location should be > absolute! And now you're going through a lot of trouble to strip off > that stuff, undoing my work. I find that rather ironic :) Because the rest of my code is old :) > > wow. I wish you include those examples in the doc. > > It's a wiki, you know :) But I've added it for you. Ture. I'm not confident to give them nicely. Best, Daishi _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
