httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ed Korthof">
Subject Re: what to do about CGI and chunked
Date Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:19:09 GMT
Well, if it's still relevant -- don't know about the time line for 1.2b1, but
I'd vote +1 for a).  It's probably true that no sane client would chunk
x-www-url-encoded input, but considering some of the companies making browsers,
I'd want to be safe.  Also, if CGI/1.1 has significantly different
functionality -- ie. a different interface -- I'd like a clear distinction
between it and CGI/1.0.

On the other hand, I think this would imply a fair amount of extra work... I'd
offer to do it for 1.2, but I don't know how busy I'll be.


On Nov 20,  1:57am, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Subject: what to do about CGI and chunked
> Apache is currently schizo in terms of how it treats CGI.  On the one hand,
> it tries to treat CGI scripts as idiot children and protect them from
> HTTP/1.1 improvements, which prevents new CGI scripts from using HTTP/1.1.
> On the other hand, it does so in a way which is no longer compliant with
> CGI/1.1.  We need to choose one of the following for the existing mod_cgi:
>    a) Assume it is only for old scripts.  This requires changing mod_cgi
>       so that it rejects anything without a Content-Length (411 Length
>       Required) even if it is chunked, or at least anything that cannot
>       be read into a single buffer before execing the script.
>    b) Assume it is for new scripts and that old scripts will just never
>       see the HTTP/1.1 input (after all, no sane client would chunk an
>       x-www-url-encoded form).  This requires changing get_client_block
>       so that it passes the chunk size and footer to the script. Does anyone
>       know whether Netscape is including a Content-Length with a
>       multipart/form-data POST?  If not, then we should also handle multipart
>       delimited input.
> If we choose (a), then we should have a separate module for the new CGI,
> including new directives for CGI2Alias (or something).  The same questions
> may apply to mod_fastcgi, but I have no idea now that interface works.
> ......Roy
>-- End of excerpt from Roy T. Fielding

View raw message