httpd-bugs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 17454] New: - Apache 2.0 ForceType directive problem
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:10:14 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17454>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17454

Apache 2.0 ForceType directive problem

           Summary: Apache 2.0 ForceType directive problem
           Product: Apache httpd-2.0
           Version: 2.0.40
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: Normal
          Priority: Other
         Component: mod_mime
        AssignedTo: bugs@httpd.apache.org
        ReportedBy: systematic1@yahoo.com


I have run into a problem that will force me to downgrade from Apache 2.0.40 to 
1.3.27. I have used the <Files> and ForceType directives under 1.3.20 to allow 
passing script data via the URL to scripts without using query string (? at the 
end). It appears that since v. 2.0 the server no longer responds the same as 
1.3.*. The following sample URL would execute the script "process" in the 
document root running under 1.3.20 as mapped in .htaccess with a ForceType 
directive:

http://www.somedomain.com/process/datavalue1/datavalue2

Under 2.0.40 executing the URL above results in an Error 404. If I remove the 
extra parts after process it works. So the ForceType seems to be working. But 
the way 2.0 is treating "process" as a directory instead of a file is troubling 
me.

http://www.somedomain.com/process

The .htaccess file in the document root contains:

<Files "process">
  ForceType  application/x-httpd-php
</Files>

But, not being able to pass arbitrary data after the "process" part so the 
script can parse it defeats the purpose of URLs without query strings.

Is this an oversight or a planned (undocumented) change in 2.0? I have searched 
the bug DB and the change log and cannot find any info relating to this. I 
searched Google groups and found several others reporting the same complaint.

Thank you

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message