On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:43:51 -0700 Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:40:39PM +0200, Jacek Prucia wrote: > > <url user="Aladdin" password="open > > sesame">http://localhost:8080/auth</url> > > To me, this seems a fair enough compromise for right now as it > seems some people really want this feature now. Yep, but this patch is borked. I found a few flaws in it (including SEGV). A revised version is in the works. I'll post it here later. > > I can also prepare round-robin-auth.xml, [...] > That's perfectly okay with me. We can do all of that via .htaccess > configuration. We can arrange for you to get the right access to > the repositories and servers to setup this area. Cool. How about http://httpd.apache.org/test/flood/check/ ? > > capable of (regexp matches, failures, auth and this kind of stuff). > > With such setup changes in google responses wouldn't be that bad ;)) > > Yeah, it'd ensure that our examples don't break on us. But, it's > kind of cool to use Google in the examples. =) Agreed. I'll try to fix that Google regexp before we roll 1.0 [...] > > <realm> > > <name>test</name> > > <user>foo</user> > > <password>bar</password> > > <!-- if somebody want to simulate typing --> > > <delay>10</delay> > > </realm> > > Not sure we'd want delay in the realm (that seems more like a > property of the URL not the auth realm), So that we might mimic human behaviour. Typing a password with keyboard takes time, doesn't it? But this is a bikesheed issue. We are far away from flood beeing 'web capacity testing tool' and that feature is just exactly for that type of testing. Moved down TODO list. [...] > *sigh* Yeah, that's one thing we've always thought about, but never > really implemented (allowing following of 3xx). If you wish to > take a stab at it, be our guest. Almost certainly, we'd have to > discuss it on-list first before coding it up. Yep. I was thinking about treating all subsequent request kinda like separate URL list. Just like a stack. Flood gets 3xx response -- it makes a new temporary urllist and copies current URL and location from response to it, does switch and goes on. If it needs to repeat that (401 or another 3xx) -- fine. When it hits 2xx type response it goes back to url where fork has occured. Of course there are few issues to take care about: time measure, detection of redirect loops and so on. Besides that we have no way for farmer to switch urllist on the fly -- that would be needed first. Does that makes sense? regards, -- Jacek Prucia 7bulls.com S.A. http://www.7bulls.com/
