Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
On May 5, 2005, at 16:23, Tim Cheadle wrote: On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 10:48 -0400, Tim Cheadle wrote: Any reason not to do this for other methods as well? Because the other methods in HTTP 1.0 (GET and HEAD) don't require it, nor does it make sense as they don't have any post-header content to send. Right, but there's methods in 1.1 (for which Client::HTTP is being rewritten) that can have content (e.g. PROPFIND). So why not just add a content-length header whenever there is content? Per the PoCo::Client::HTTP perldoc: BUGS HTTP/1.1 requests are not supported. This bug has been fixed. Unfortunately it invalidates your patch. I would still like the component to do the right thing, but I don't know enough about the various HTTP protocol versions to say what that might be. If you'd like to resubmit your patch for POE::Component::Client::HTTP at its current revision, I would be happy to apply it. -- Rocco Caputo - http://poe.perl.org/
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
> Surely if someone is using chunks you don't want to use content-length? HTTP 1.0 does not support OPTIONS (and therefore chunks) requests.
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
On 6 May 2005, at 05:30, Tim Cheadle wrote: I suppose it wouldn't hurt anything to simply add a Content-Length header to every request (including those with zero-length content) if no such header exists already. Any HTTPd that blows up when it sees Content-Length=0 on a GET request is buggy to begin with. =) If there is zero-length content, we should still add Content-Length=0. Tim Surely if someone is using chunks you don't want to use content-length? Cheers Arthur - CTO @ Fotango Ltd +447834716919 http://www.fotango.com/ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
> How about: > > If there's nonzero-length content > And there isn't a Content-Length header > We go ahead and add one? > > Would that cause damage anywhere? > If so, is there an alternate solution that would cause less (ideally > no) damage? I suppose it wouldn't hurt anything to simply add a Content-Length header to every request (including those with zero-length content) if no such header exists already. Any HTTPd that blows up when it sees Content-Length=0 on a GET request is buggy to begin with. =) If there is zero-length content, we should still add Content-Length=0. Tim
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:48:58AM -0400, Tim Cheadle wrote: > > Any reason not to do this for other methods as well? > > Because the other methods in HTTP 1.0 (GET and HEAD) don't require it, nor > does it make sense as they don't have any post-header content to send. How about: If there's nonzero-length content And there isn't a Content-Length header We go ahead and add one? Would that cause damage anywhere? If so, is there an alternate solution that would cause less (ideally no) damage? -- Rocco Caputo - http://poe.perl.org/
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
> On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 10:48 -0400, Tim Cheadle wrote: >> > Any reason not to do this for other methods as well? >> >> Because the other methods in HTTP 1.0 (GET and HEAD) don't require it, >> nor >> does it make sense as they don't have any post-header content to send. >> > Right, but there's methods in 1.1 (for which Client::HTTP is being > rewritten) that can have content (e.g. PROPFIND). So why not just add > a content-length header whenever there is content? Per the PoCo::Client::HTTP perldoc: BUGS HTTP/1.1 requests are not supported.
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
> Any reason not to do this for other methods as well? Because the other methods in HTTP 1.0 (GET and HEAD) don't require it, nor does it make sense as they don't have any post-header content to send.
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
All I know is I had this issue with Poco::Server::HTTP. So when I see automated content measurement, I'd rather have them fixed in the library. --- Arthur Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 4 May 2005, at 22:04, Matt Cashner wrote: > > > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 13:40 -0700, Mathieu Longtin > wrote: > >> Actually, you should do a use bytes before you > calculate > >> the length. Otherwise, unicode strings will get the > number > >> of characters, not bytes, and send the wrong length. > > > > poe itself does a use bytes on startup so doing that > again here is not > > necessary. > > > > -- > > sungo > > > > > > surely it is lexically scoped, is it not? > > - > CTO @ Fotango Ltd > +447834716919 > http://www.fotango.com/ > > Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:33 -0400, Tim Cheadle wrote:
> --- HTTP.pm.old 2005-05-04 16:31:57.600035522 -0400
> +++ HTTP.pm 2005-05-04 16:32:02.713339216 -0400
> @@ -344,15 +344,6 @@
>);
>}
>
> - # Add a Content-Length header for POSTs
> - if (defined $http_request->method() and $http_request->method() eq
> 'POST') {
Any reason not to do this for other methods as well?
Martijn
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
On 4 May 2005, at 22:04, Matt Cashner wrote: On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 13:40 -0700, Mathieu Longtin wrote: Actually, you should do a use bytes before you calculate the length. Otherwise, unicode strings will get the number of characters, not bytes, and send the wrong length. poe itself does a use bytes on startup so doing that again here is not necessary. -- sungo surely it is lexically scoped, is it not? - CTO @ Fotango Ltd +447834716919 http://www.fotango.com/
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 13:40 -0700, Mathieu Longtin wrote: > Actually, you should do a use bytes before you calculate > the length. Otherwise, unicode strings will get the number > of characters, not bytes, and send the wrong length. poe itself does a use bytes on startup so doing that again here is not necessary. -- sungo
Re: PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
Actually, you should do a use bytes before you calculate
the length. Otherwise, unicode strings will get the number
of characters, not bytes, and send the wrong length.
--- Tim Cheadle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to use POE::Component::Client::HTTP for
> asynchronous POST
> requests, and it has a fatal bug that breaks such
> requests. As per the
> HTTP 1.0 spec, all POSTs are required to have a
> "Content-Length" header
> specifying the number of octets in the content of the
> request. The POE
> component does not automatically set this header if not
> previously
> present.
>
> This results in servers not knowing when the request is
> complete.
>
> If you add the Content-Length header, things work great.
>
> Tim
>
>
> Here is a simple patch:
>
> --- HTTP.pm.old 2005-05-04 16:31:57.600035522 -0400
> +++ HTTP.pm 2005-05-04 16:32:02.713339216 -0400
> @@ -344,15 +344,6 @@
>);
>}
>
> - # Add a Content-Length header for POSTs
> - if (defined $http_request->method() and
> $http_request->method() eq
> 'POST') {
> -if (defined $http_request->content()) {
> - $http_request->header(
> -'Content-Length' =>
> length($http_request->content())
> - );
> -}
> - }
> -
># Create a progress postback if requested.
>my $progress_postback;
>$progress_postback =
> $sender->postback($progress_event, $http_request,
> $tag)
>
>
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
PoCo::Client::HTTP Bug
I'm trying to use POE::Component::Client::HTTP for asynchronous POST
requests, and it has a fatal bug that breaks such requests. As per the
HTTP 1.0 spec, all POSTs are required to have a "Content-Length" header
specifying the number of octets in the content of the request. The POE
component does not automatically set this header if not previously
present.
This results in servers not knowing when the request is complete.
If you add the Content-Length header, things work great.
Tim
Here is a simple patch:
--- HTTP.pm.old 2005-05-04 16:31:57.600035522 -0400
+++ HTTP.pm 2005-05-04 16:32:02.713339216 -0400
@@ -344,15 +344,6 @@
);
}
- # Add a Content-Length header for POSTs
- if (defined $http_request->method() and $http_request->method() eq
'POST') {
-if (defined $http_request->content()) {
- $http_request->header(
-'Content-Length' => length($http_request->content())
- );
-}
- }
-
# Create a progress postback if requested.
my $progress_postback;
$progress_postback = $sender->postback($progress_event, $http_request,
$tag)
