Julian, good day. Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 06:52:59PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > Eygene Ryabinkin schrieb: > >Good day! > >Sorry for rather long letter, but this is the summary from numerous > >discuissions and I really tried to make it short. > >... > > Hi. > > RFC2518bis allows the Destination header to be just an absolute path for > exactly that reason (see > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18.html#destination-header>). >
Pardon for my stupideness, but what 'that reason' you are talking about? The previous letter was rather long and I fail to identify the exact point you're commenting. Could you, please, elaborate a bit? > So this is really one of the few things why RFC2518bis support would be useful > in practice (if clients start to take advantage of it). But even if the 'Destination' is just the absolute path, then in the reversy proxying from the http://frontend/dir-one to the http://backend/some-long-path/dir-two we will still need to rewrite that absolute path. It is not very uncommon to see the reverse proxying for the different absolute paths on the frontend and backend servers: I've seen some that were due to some software weirdness (for example, two proxied Wiki instances that require the /wiki path to be present in both of them) or some legacy configuration that can not be readily changed due to the poor design. Am I missing some point? -- Eygene
