Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 02:34:29PM -0500, Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM, n...@apache.org wrote: Author: niq Date: Fri Dec 26 19:53:32 2008 New Revision: 729586 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729586view=rev Log: CGI: return 504 (Gateway timeout) rather than 500 when a script times out before returning status line/headers. PR 42190 Any concern that canned message for 504 is going to cause confusion? I don't see why 504 is more appropriate than 500 for this case. 504 is specifically defined for cases where the server is acting as a gateway or proxy, which it is not here. (by the 2616 definitions of gateway and proxy) joe
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
On 8 Jan 2009, at 10:34, Joe Orton wrote: I don't see why 504 is more appropriate than 500 for this case. 504 is specifically defined for cases where the server is acting as a gateway or proxy, which it is not here. (by the 2616 definitions of gateway and proxy) joe One might consider the G of CGI a clue. The fact that the backend is (usually) an application running locally on the same machine as the webserver doesn't preclude the latter being a gateway. Come to think of it, CGI errors fall into more categories than we allow. A misconfiguration is indeed Internal Server Error. But a script that generates garbage is an External Server Error, and a 502 response would be in order. It would be no bad thing to point the finger of blame at broken scripts rather than confuse the authors with internal errors. -- Nick Kew
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
* Nick Kew wrote: On 8 Jan 2009, at 10:34, Joe Orton wrote: I don't see why 504 is more appropriate than 500 for this case. 504 is specifically defined for cases where the server is acting as a gateway or proxy, which it is not here. (by the 2616 definitions of gateway and proxy) joe One might consider the G of CGI a clue. The fact that the backend is (usually) an application running locally on the same machine as the webserver doesn't preclude the latter being a gateway. Come to think of it, CGI errors fall into more categories than we allow. A misconfiguration is indeed Internal Server Error. But a script that generates garbage is an External Server Error, and a 502 response would be in order. It would be no bad thing to point the finger of blame at broken scripts rather than confuse the authors with internal errors. Generally spoken, the message ist mostly not seen by authors, but by users. For *them* it's an opaque error (and should be), no matter what. nd
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM, n...@apache.org wrote: Author: niq Date: Fri Dec 26 19:53:32 2008 New Revision: 729586 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729586view=rev Log: CGI: return 504 (Gateway timeout) rather than 500 when a script times out before returning status line/headers. PR 42190 Any concern that canned message for 504 is going to cause confusion? The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the upstream server. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
Re: svn commit: r729586 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util_script.c
On 7 Jan 2009, at 19:34, Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM, n...@apache.org wrote: Author: niq Date: Fri Dec 26 19:53:32 2008 New Revision: 729586 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=729586view=rev Log: CGI: return 504 (Gateway timeout) rather than 500 when a script times out before returning status line/headers. PR 42190 Any concern that canned message for 504 is going to cause confusion? The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the upstream server. It's a fair cop, guv. Substituting The gateway did not receive a timely response from the upstream server or application. r732504 -- Nick Kew
