httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <trawi...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] filtering and canned error responses
Date Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:30:45 GMT
rbb@covalent.net writes:

> > I disagree completely with the premise that all filters act on tags in
> > a fashion similar to mod_include.  That is a debilitating requirement.
> > Certain filters can work that way and certain ones can't.  It is
> > better to disallow filtering on the error strings than to require that
> > filters sanity-check their input data (not all filters can even do
> > that).  (Besides, the less code between an error message and the
> > network the better...  Sending an error message should be a relatively
> > simple.)
> 
> But who's to say that we don't want all filters acting on those errors.  I
> see a few cases, filters that add data to all output, filters that add
> data on tags, and filters that modify some characteristic of the
> data.  
> 
> Tags are not an issue in this case, because we all agree that any
> errors Apache generates won't have tags.

What is a tag?  That is for the filter to decide (if indeed the
filter's processing is tag-based).

> Adding data to all output (I'm thinking header and trailer documents that
> identify the site, or add a logo, or something like that) may want to be
> used on error documents.
> 
> Filters that modify the data (I'm thinking charset or automatic langauge
> translation) are very useful, especially on error pages.  These aren't
> connection filters, they are content filters.

True.  That is an area where we have breakage now.

Suppose the requested object is /cgi-bin/1047/gobble.
mod_charset_lite has been told to translate text/* output in
/cgi-bin/1047/ from IBM1047 to 8859-1.  Apache determines that there
is no such URI and generates an error message.  That error message is
then translated by mod_charset_lite according to the information that
was available prior to when we realized that /cgi-bin/1047/gobble
didn't exist.  The result is a meaningless translation and an
unreadable canned error message.

When a redirection occurs (i.e., the administrator has specified
ErrorDocument 404 /errors/404.html), then modules will be given
information about /errors/404.html and the set of filters will be
built appropriately and the configuration used by the filters will be
the appropriate configuration for /errors/404.html (not the
configuration for /cgi-bin/1047/gobble).

When a redirection does not occur (no ErrorDocument directive for the
error or an ErrorDocument directive which specifies the error message
directly), how do we avoid a filter using the wrong configuration
directives?  (Not that there are any configuration directives for such
a canned error messages.)

Recap: 

  redirection: 

    magic happens; modules know what is going on

  no redirection: 

    potential GIGO, 'cause filters don't know what to do

    Some filters only act on tags, and if they aren't present they'll
    pass the data on through with no breakage.

    Some filters do not act on tags; all they know to do is to perform
    a certain transformation on every byte of input.

Some problems:

1) If we're on an EBCDIC machine, how do we translate canned error
   messages (i.e., no ErrorDocument-proscribed redirection) from the
   code page of the source code to 8859-1?

   This is similar to another problem -- translating HTTP header
   fields and chunk headers/trailers from the code page of the source
   code to 8859-1, so it can be solved in the same way (some
   indication in the bucket of what is going on?).

2) What if we absolutely must send canned error messages through
   certain required filters?  One example is language translation,
   which you mentioned above.  Another example is an HTML->WML
   translator (not that I know how a module would know when to install
   that filter :) ).

   I don't know.  Mandatory redirection isn't cool because you still
   need the simple fallback method of generating the message when the
   redirection fails.
 
> 
> Of the three types I can see for filters, one isn't an issue, and the
> other two are may want to filter the error doc.
> 
> > If the administrator wants filter processing on an error document she
> > can use a redirect, so there is no big loss here.
> 
> But why bother with this.  What is the problem we are trying to solve with
> this?  To me, it seems very straightforward that the error docs are put
> into a bucket brigade with an EOS, because know that the doc is done, and
> we send it down the filter stack.  This doesn't try to avoid the filter
> logic we already have and it should work.  Where is the issue?
> 
> > I'm not sure I understand "canned errors generated by mistakes in
> > SSIs."  Are you talking about a failed subrequest?
> 
> Take a look at mod_include.  We return the string "[an error occurred
> while processing this directive]" whenever we encounter an error in
> processing an SSI tag.  We don't want to send those out without filtering
> them.  Also, how does this affect sub-requests?  If I have data that is
> being buffered by some filter, and a filter higher-up sends a canned-error
> response, won't the output be all messed up, because it won't wait for the
> data sitting in the lower filter?

The mod_include case is different than the cases affected by my patch.
In the mod_include case you refer to, we are delivering the URI which
was requested.  There may be the occasional mod_include error message,
but any filters in the chain after mod_include are processing the
output that they expect (according to their hooks which were called
prior to the content handler).

-- 
Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site:
     http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
          Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Mime
View raw message