Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 54957 invoked by uid 500); 20 Aug 2003 12:00:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 54683 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2003 11:59:51 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (212.8.217.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Aug 2003 11:59:51 -0000 Received: from notes.sundn.de (ntsrv5.sundn.de [10.10.2.10]) by mail.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 240AECA09C for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:58:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hw0386 ([10.10.2.46]) by notes.sundn.de (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with SMTP id 2003082013580973:3904 ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:58:09 +0200 From: "Carsten Ziegeler" To: Subject: RE: Using cocoon: source in s Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:00:22 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <3F435F87.5040909@verizon.net> Importance: Normal X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 20.08.2003 13:58:09, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 20.08.2003 13:58:10, Serialize complete at 20.08.2003 13:58:10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > Phil Shafer wrote: > > >Vadim Gritsenko writes: > > > > > >>Try the suggestion above. > >> > >> > > > >Will do. Thanks for the help. Is there a PR open for this? Should > >I open one? > > > > I think there is no bug open for this. Also, I'd ping Carsten to hear > his opinion. Carsten? > > PS Thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106067513100007&r=1&w=2 > Pong. I think this is something the internal processing should handle, which means, if the reader sets such a header it should simply be ignored instead of being passed on. Now, I guess this is very easy as we could create a response wrapper for internal requests (we already have a request wrapper) and filter the headers. Carsten