William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Will, can you help me understand your concern? this doesn't change the headers of the POST request. it only affects which new headers we generate for the new SSI GET subrequest.
Well I totally understand the issue - I'm blowing up in some PHP code due to an earlier php include= snarfing up the post body.
My concern is, what -if- the body is actually destined/desired by the 'included' content as opposed to the outer (apparent) url?
thanks, I think I understand the concern. in that case it wouldn't be appropriate for the subrequest to simply inherit body headers/lack of body headers from the outer request, as the 2.0 branch does now. they would have to be created independently. it probably would be asking too much to expect ap_sub_req_protocol to do the right thing for a GET subrequest with a body. but that's where this fix is.
If we can revert to 2.0.39 behavior (this changed, either in apache or in php between 4.0 and 4.3.10) I'd be fine with some fix. But sub-content should be able to participate. So I'm effectively arguing that apreq should be the arbiter of bodies. If the subrequest calls apreq API's (rather than trusting headers which should be handled in our HTTP filter stack) then everything would be goodness. And the included body shouldn't 'snarf' that post content leaving nothing for the main handler. apreq would be a good broker to distribute it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] httpd-2.1]$ grep -ri apreq . [EMAIL PROTECTED] httpd-2.1]$
doesn't appear to be stable enough for 2.0 at present.
however, I will remove this backport vote. I only know of one real site that ever hit this. if someone wants to come up with an improved patch for 2.1, that would be great.
Greg
