On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 21:38:19 +0200, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
...
> > Current CVS snapshot I Bugzilled them as
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=129391
> >
> > FYI backport of current mod_proxy is technically trivia - just copying raw
> > mod_proxy.c
> > mod_proxy.h
> > proxy_http.c
>
> It would also need proxy_util.c. Not sure about ftp or connect.
It is not about "would" - it WORKS4ME fine with just those 3 files in the
Bugzilla post above.
...
> Maybe we should infer a body (and hence apply the above logic) in any
> POST or PUT request? If we do that, it begs the question of how to treat
> unknown HTTP/extension methods (cf DAV), and suggests perhaps
> RequireRequestBody should be made a configuration directive.
What would happen in this case httpd would infer a body while no body would be
found there?
* In the case of a 'connection close' nothing, empty body would be found.
* In the case of a 'persistent connection':
* RFC2616 section 8.1.2.1:
In order to remain persistent, all messages on the connection MUST
have a self-defined message length (i.e., one not defined by closure
of the connection), as described in section 4.4.
Therefore 'persistent connection' is not allowed in this case.
Therefore it should be safe to assume if no Content-Length and no "chunked"
headers are present there MUST follow an optional body with the
connection-close afterwards as 'persistent connection' MUST NOT be present.
Regards,
Lace
--
Jan Kratochvil; Captive: free r/w NTFS Filesystem; http://www.jankratochvil.net/
