Le 13/02/2023 à 17:48, m...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: manu
Date: Mon Feb 13 16:48:35 2023
New Revision: 1907608
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1907608&view=rev
Log:
Add MS-WDV support
MS-WDV specification:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-wdv
The changes introduces the DAVMSext directive, which is used to
enable MS-WDV: DAVMSext +WDV
dav_get_timeout_string() is introduced as a variant of dav_get_timeout().
The former parses a string, the later parse the Timeout HTTP header.
Added:
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/dav/main/ms_wdv.c
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/CMakeLists.txt
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/dav/main/NWGNUmakefile
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/dav/main/config5.m4
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/dav/main/mod_dav.c
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/dav/main/mod_dav.dsp
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/dav/main/mod_dav.h
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/dav/main/util.c
[...]
/*
+ * Command handler for the DAVmsExt directive, which is RAW
+ */
+static const char *dav_cmd_davmsext(cmd_parms *cmd, void *config, const char
*w)
+{
+ dav_dir_conf *conf = (dav_dir_conf *)config;
+
+ if (!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "None"))
+ conf->msext_opts = DAV_MSEXT_NONE;
+ else if (!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "Off"))
+ conf->msext_opts = DAV_MSEXT_NONE;
Hi, I think that:
if (!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "None") ||
!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "Off"))
conf->msext_opts = DAV_MSEXT_NONE;
would be more readable. It is easier to see that both are the same.
But it is mostly a matter of taste :).
(same below when setting DAV_MSEXT_ALL)
+ else if (!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "+WDV"))
+ conf->msext_opts |= DAV_MSEXT_WDV;
+ else if (!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "WDV"))
+ conf->msext_opts |= DAV_MSEXT_WDV;
is |= expected here?
+ else if (!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "-WDV"))
+ conf->msext_opts &= ~DAV_MSEXT_WDV;
+ else if (!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "All"))
+ conf->msext_opts = DAV_MSEXT_ALL;
+ else if (!ap_cstr_casecmp(w, "On"))
+ conf->msext_opts = DAV_MSEXT_ALL;
+ else
+ return "DAVMSext values can be None | [+|-]WDV | All";
+
+ return NULL;
+}
+
