On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:55:56AM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
[...]
> Actually I the problem I saw was exactly what Boris was talking about:
> The C-L header wasn't there. The test simply exercises 4 different
> combinations of sending and not sending C-L header and content.
>
> >my point was that as long as apache does whatever it does
> >consistently between GET and HEAD it's not a bug. but maybe I'm just not
> >seeing it, so if you guys grok all of that and still see an issue, let's
> >flesh it out.
>
> I think it's there. The test that shows that is:
>
> {
> # if the response handler sends no data, and sets C-L header,
> # the client doesn't get C-L header
> my $uri = "$location?set_content_length";
> my $res = $method->($uri);
> ok t_cmp $res->code, 200, "$method $uri code";
> ok t_cmp $res->header('Content-Length'), undef, "$method $uri
> C-L header";
> ok t_cmp $res->content, "", "$method $uri content";
> }
>
> As I didn't know what's the right thing that should happen, I didn't
> make it a failure. But it probabaly shouldn't be undef in the C-L check.
>
> But the fact that sending a bogus char and a different C-L header works
> with HEAD (gets the C-L header through), whereas not sending any output
> breaks, seems like a bug to me. As mentioned earlier I think the bug is
> in the headers_out filter, which received EOS (since on HEAD apache
> scratches the response body) and no body. So it takes the liberty to
> nuke the C-L header, which I'm not sure is a good thing. When we send
> some body, headers_out sends the headers before seeing EOS and therefore
> it can't tell whether the body is coming or not, so it leaves the C-L
> header alone. Which is at least inconsistent.
I mentioned to Geoff off-list about possibly using a flush bucket,
since I don't have a test setup ready (just replaced my dead
laptop hard drive)
I wrote:
> > I used to make good use of $r->send_http_header() in my MP1 handlers.
> > This method isn't available in MP2 (why?), though I could picture it
> > replaced by sending a flush bucket down the filter chain.
>
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> apache now sends the headers for you via the header filter. if you were
> allowed to send your own headers you might send them before a filter ran
> that would alter the headers. for instance, mod_include removes the ETag
> header.
Would a flush bucket be a great way to say "send headers now"?
So if you're not going to send the actual content down the filter chain
on a HEAD request, would sending a flush bucket make things happy?
IIF this works, can I make a request the $r->send_http_header() be
implemented in Apache2 to do just that? (create and pass a flush bucket)
Cheers,
Glenn
--
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html
