On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 08:28 +1000, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> Your RewriteRule is wrong it works with the URI part only and not the
> full URL. Read the mod_rewrite docos and correct your rule.
Argh! An RTFM response. I probably deserve it. But...
I did read the docs. Lots of 'em. Still, I don't see why it behaves as
it does, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered you in the first place.
Also, which of the rules is wrong exactly? Or rather, why is it ok to
ignore the explicit redirect code? Sorry, I really don't see how I
should correct the rules. Any more detailed pointers?
> Sent from my phone
Yeah, it's not urgent, I'm fine waiting until you're back to a decently
sized keyboard... ;)
guenther
> > On May 7, 2010 7:44 AM, "Karsten Bräckelmann" <guent...@rudersport.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Please Cc me on every reply. I'm subscribed to the allow post list, but
> > I am not subscribed to receive list posts. Can't stand yet another
> > mailing list at this point. ;)
> > Extract the leading part of the REQUEST_URI. Look it up in our legacy
> > map, and if and only if it is defined in the map, go on and rewrite the
> > URL with the corresponding URI.
> >
> > RewriteMap legacy txt:/path/to/legacy.map
> >
> > RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^(/[^/]+)(.*)
> > RewriteCond ${legacy:%1} !=""
> > RewriteRule ^ ${legacy:%1} [E=req:%2]
> >
> > So at this time, a request for /foo is rewritten with the example URI.
> >
> > Remember, the mod_rewrite magic is supposed to distinguish between
> > redirect URIs with or without a trailing slash, so I need more rules.
> >
> > RewriteRule ^http://.+/$ - [R=301,L] # 302, WTF!?
> >
> > Using this rule, I do get the desired redirect with the correct
> > Location, alas a 302 Found temporary redirect. Why? I mean, sure,
> > using the dash as a substitution results in no substitution being
> > performed. But that's OK, isn't it? The URL already is the correct, full
> > target URI at this point, so just force the external redirection and
> > stop processing.
> >
> > It does stop here. It does not process subsequent rules. But it ignores
> > my explicit 301 return code and instead returns 302. Huh!?
> >
> > RewriteRule ^(http://.+/)$ $1 [R=301,L]
> >
> > Using this rule, *instead* of the previous one, works -- and returns a
> > 301 Moved Permanently as I asked for. The only difference being a
> > (rather pointless and less easy to the eye) substitution of the current
> > URL with the very same URL.
> >
> >
> > Is this a bug, some missing or unclear documentation, or am I just being
> > an idiot? :)
> >
> > Both rules do stop processing, both rules do redirect. Only, the first
> > variant ignores the explicit return code...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
