Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 3000 invoked by uid 6000); 23 Dec 1998 01:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 2990 invoked from network); 23 Dec 1998 01:20:15 -0000 Received: from paris.ics.uci.edu (mmdf@128.195.1.50) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 23 Dec 1998 01:20:15 -0000 Received: from kiwi.ics.uci.edu by paris.ics.uci.edu id aa11523; 22 Dec 98 17:16 PST To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: general/2615: Set-Cookie not sent with Redirect response In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Dec 1998 19:46:37 EST." Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:16:07 -0800 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <9812221716.aa11523@paris.ics.uci.edu> Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org >Hrm.. Are you sure about that? I use the normal r->headers_out for both >my cookies and my redirect and it works fine. The code looks something >like this (with all sorts of gunk removed): > > table_set(r->headers_out, "Location", location_str); > r->status = REDIRECT; > table_add(r->headers_out, "Set-Cookie", cookie_str); > send_http_header(r); That's because you are crafting your own response rather than using the canned response generator in http_protocol.c (ap_send_error_response) that gets used when a module returns REDIRECT. >So it definitely gets sent on a 302. That brings up another question. >REDIRECT is defined to be HTTP_MOVED_TEMPORARILY which is 302. How is >that different from HTTP_TEMPORARY_REDIRECT 307? I never really >understood that, but didn't care because it seemed to work. 307 was defined as a supposedly unambiguous version of 302 regarding whether or not the redirected request should be a GET or the same method as the orginal request. *shrug* ....Roy