httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <br...@hyperreal.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3 STATUS
Date Wed, 06 May 1998 05:18:27 GMT

It does.  Oh wait, it doesn't send Accept-Range if Range: was in the
request.  Sheesh.  Why shouldn't it?  What's wrong with this patch:

Index: http_core.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /export/home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/main/http_core.c,v
retrieving revision 1.192
diff -C3 -r1.192 http_core.c
*** http_core.c 1998/05/05 04:48:05    1.192
--- http_core.c 1998/05/06 05:09:39
***************
*** 2120,2125 ****
--- 2120,2126 ----
      ap_update_mtime (r, r->finfo.st_mtime);
      ap_set_last_modified(r);
      ap_set_etag(r);
+     ap_table_setn(r->headers_out, "Accept-Ranges", "bytes");
      if (((errstatus = ap_meets_conditions(r)) != OK)
        || (errstatus = ap_set_content_length (r, r->finfo.st_size))) {
            return errstatus;
Index: http_protocol.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /export/home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/main/http_protocol.c,v
retrieving revision 1.212
diff -C3 -r1.212 http_protocol.c
*** http_protocol.c     1998/04/27 06:59:35     1.212
--- http_protocol.c     1998/05/06 05:06:59
***************
*** 141,147 ****
          range = ap_table_get(r->headers_in, "Request-Range");
  
      if (!range || strncasecmp(range, "bytes=", 6)) {
-         ap_table_setn(r->headers_out, "Accept-Ranges", "bytes");
          return 0;
      }
  
--- 141,146 ----


	Brian

At 09:49 PM 5/5/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Um, but Roy is the person who added the comment:
>
>    Apache should be sending 200 *and* Accept-Ranges.
>
>Dean
>
>On 6 May 1998 brian@hyperreal.org wrote:
>
>> brian       98/05/05 21:46:28
>> 
>>   Modified:    .        STATUS
>>   Log:
>>   I have examined the mail archives extensively on this issue.  It's
apparent
>>   that apache'c current behavior regarding range-requests for ranges
that go
>>   beyond the length of the current object is correct.  See
>>   
>>   <9711141658.aa15032@paris.ics.uci.edu>
>>   
>>   where Roy says:
>>   
>>     The current behavior is correct.  A range which extends beyond the
actual
>>     length of the entity is possible in cases where a device is attempting
>>     to limit the response size (think PDA) even when it doesn't yet know
>>     the actual length.  At least, that was the goal.
>>   
>>   So, you all can now sleep at night.
>>   
>>   Revision  Changes    Path
>>   1.377     +0 -10     apache-1.3/STATUS
>>   
>>   Index: STATUS
>>   ===================================================================
>>   RCS file: /export/home/cvs/apache-1.3/STATUS,v
>>   retrieving revision 1.376
>>   retrieving revision 1.377
>>   diff -u -r1.376 -r1.377
>>   --- STATUS	1998/05/06 00:23:56	1.376
>>   +++ STATUS	1998/05/06 04:46:27	1.377
>>   @@ -167,16 +167,6 @@
>>          appropriate environment. Marc and Alexei don't see any
>>          big deal. Martin says that not every "env" has a -u flag.
>>    
>>   -    * 206 vs. 200 issue on Content-Length
>>   -	See <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971102000930.5555B-100000@valis.worldgate.com>
>>   -	Roy says sending 200 is correct, but Alexei disagrees.
>>   -	Marc sides with Alexei.  We were talking about two different PRs.
>>   -        Apache should be sending 200 *and* Accept-Ranges.
>>   -
>>   -	Dean says: I'm still really confused as to what the problem is or
>>   -	isn't.  If one of you three could work up a patch that would be
>>   -	most excellent.
>>   -
>>        * Marc's socket options like source routing (kill them?)
>>    	Marc, Martin say Yes
>>    
>>   
>>   
>>   
>> 
>
>
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
pure chewing satisfaction                                  brian@apache.org
                                                        brian@hyperreal.org

Mime
View raw message