httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: More ErrorDocument problems
Date Thu, 20 Apr 1995 02:10:19 GMT
On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> > Or, more realistically, maybe it's the lack of 
> > 
> > WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="HotWired!"
> > 
> > in the ErrorDocument response....
> maybe we need to go back to what we had - if you hit a problem/error
> and redirect to X, then you rely on X being configured to push out the
> right response.
> This would mean that 401 couldn't *ever* be redirected to  401.html,
> but it could redirect to   401.asis
> I'd be happier with this approach. The special case of a 401 -> .html
> is kinda unnatural anyway.

I hate playing the role of Crochety Old Man (particularly since I'm a 
lot younger than most of you) but let's walk through what I 
thought the algorithm for redirecting would have been like:

Request comes in
Response has error code X
Error code X is redirected to URI foo

Do any content-negotiation mapping necessary on URI
If URI foo is a script:
   execute script and rely on script to generate headers
   send to client
   log access
Else If URI is a .asis page
   dump to client
   log access
   print headers of original response to client
   print the appropriate Content-type: header
   print a blank line
   print data in file
   log access

By this logic, if the redirect is not to a CGI script or a .asis, there
should be no difference in the *headers* of a 401 response from NCSA 1.3 and
Apache (using ErrorDocument on a 401), except the latter will probably 
have a Content-type: line.

Thus, I don't see why we should force ErrorDocument to point 
to asis scripts.

Is the logic in the code different, modulo implementation details?


--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

View raw message