Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 13:51:52 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: 1.3.13 mod_proxy
Message-ID: <20000611135152.T19484@lyra.org>
Mail-Followup-To: new-httpd@apache.org
References: <000101bfd36e$40e0a270$345985d0@corecomm.net>
 <39439546.FB3BAE9C@topsail.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <39439546.FB3BAE9C@topsail.org>;
 from chuck@topsail.org on Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 09:33:58AM -0400

On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 09:33:58AM -0400, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > I'm confused too about your PUT comments... and I walked back
> > through the mod_proxy commits to try to figure it out...
> > 
> So am I. 8^)
> 
> > I wouldn't mind passing through PUT if that is a key request,
> > I'd like to see 1.3.13 roll with the obvious improvements
> > that users have grown impatient to see.  But I'm sure HTTP/1.1
> > will cause all sorts of new problems...
> > 
> > And for the same reason as I decided to incorporate the Win9x
> > services, 1.3.13 might be a good target, since it allows us to
> > discover if there are side effects out there, and roll the
> > best danged 2.0 server we possibly can.
> > 
> > But can we assure that the feature can be disabled for less
> > adventerous administrators :-?
> > 
> Actually it would have to be disabled by default. But I've got to scan
> the archives myself to see if that's really the commit that went in. I
> know I saw *something* go into the thing, and I would also rather
> concentrate on 2.0.


This are a bit confusing here :-) ... but if the point is that mod_proxy is
being patched to allow a PUT to pass through, then I would also want to see
the WebDAV commands allowed through. No sense in doing a teeny subset.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/