httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wilson <>
Subject Re: hmmm...
Date Wed, 19 Apr 1995 23:21:37 GMT
[loggin redirected URLs...]

> Er, no, it's not more accurate.  The server did *not* return a "200" 
> response when the 401.html file was returned.  Of course I can write a 
> perl script to grep -v 401.html's - that's not my point.  My point is 
> that until this feature every log file transaction *always* represented a 
> unique job.  There was no such request "GET /401.html".
> There was talk on www-talk about what to do when the server returns an 
> object whose canonical name was different than the request - and the 
> answer was that right now there's no way in the CLF to express that, it 
> should wait until CLFII.  I.e., a "correct way" might be
> fully - asdfsaf [19/Apr/1995:01:03:05 -0700] "GET /Login/ HTTP/1.0" 401 - "/401.html"
> just like
> foo - - [19/Apr/1995:01:03:05 -0700] "GET /cgi-bin/imagemap/foo?23,45 HTTP/1.0" 200 2345
> in response to an imagemap query once HTTP 1.1 allows us to use BASE 
> instead of redirects.

Erk.  Weeel, it looks like this is really not 1.3R compliant behaviour, so
does it pass the backward-compatibility test?  If no,  then we should
unpatch and make 0.6.2, or document it and put a support/apache2common
script somewhere.

The script is the simpler option (for us), but probably not the best
option.  Whatever form CLFII takes, and whether or not Apache adopts it
in favour of CLF or ApacheLF (with optional frosting), it looks like
we've jumped the gun.

So who's got scripts that'd die tomorrow if this behaviour was dropped?

> 	Brian


     Andrew Wilson	     URL:
Elsevier Science, Oxford   Office: +44 01865 843155    Mobile: +44 0589 616144

View raw message