All,
I've reopened bug 18388 with the comments below.
I'd love to have a discussion about Set-Cookie's proper definition --
I believe it is a response-header (and thus allowed under a 304) rather than
an entity-header. Given that, the proper algorithm would be to filter out
--On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 11:33 AM -0400 Ryan Eberhard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would appreciate the compromise where this behavior could be configured,
> particularly if there is a way for a module to update the behavior
> programmatically, e.g. without having to edit the configuration
--On Thursday, June 5, 2003 4:52 PM -0400 Ryan Eberhard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I searched the site and did not see a document describing naming conventions
for directives. If there is one and someone could send me the link, I would
appreciate it.
Nope, there's nothing like that. Sorry.
The
Attached is a patch to add a configuration directive to control whether
the server is allowed to issue Set-Cookie headers when the HTTP status
is 304 (Not Modified).
Files changed:
http-2.0/include/httpd.h -- Added allow_setcookie_on_not_modfied member
to server_rec
http-2.0/server/config.c --
All,
I apologize that I didn't see the discussion that had occurred on this topic
already... I had previously gone through the archives, but neglected to
before sending the previous mail.
Despite the quote from Roy Fielding, I stand by my claim that Set-Cookie
is a response-header and not an
Ryan Eberhard wrote:
Despite the quote from Roy Fielding, I stand by my claim that Set-Cookie
is a response-header and not an entity-header.
I would say a cookie is an entity header, in that in its typical use,
the cookie value is bound somehow to the page that comes along with it.
For example,
Ryan Eberhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Despite the quote from Roy Fielding, I stand by my claim that
> Set-Cookie is a response-header and not an entity-header.
How so? The extension-header mechanism for HTTP headers
is in the entity-header section of 2616. Since cookie
headers don
e 03, 2003 11:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug 18388: Set-Cookie header not honored on 304 (Not
modified) status
Ryan Eberhard wrote:
> Despite the quote from Roy Fielding, I stand by my claim that
> Set-Cookie
> is a response-header and not an entity-header.
I would say a
> > Despite the quote from Roy Fielding, I stand by my claim that
> > Set-Cookie is a response-header and not an entity-header.
> How so? The extension-header mechanism for HTTP headers
> is in the entity-header section of 2616. Since cookie
> headers don't appear elsewhere within the 2616
--On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 11:33 AM -0400 Ryan Eberhard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would appreciate the compromise where this behavior could be configured,
particularly if there is a way for a module to update the behavior
programmatically, e.g. without having to edit the configuration file.
10 matches
Mail list logo
