httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: over-aggressive redirection in mod_dir
Date Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:42:29 GMT
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 03:42:34PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Jim Winstead wrote:
> > 
> > but hasn't the standard httpd solution to these things been to
> > implement something like 'nokeepalive' and introduce a BrowserMatch
> > line to the standard config to enable the incorrect behavior for
> > broken browsers?
> *That* concept I can +1.  As long as it is not the default..

After seeing some of the reaction last night before I tuned out (had a
marathon session of Smuggler's Run on my PS2), I got the impression people
were desiring a "conformant" server over a "useful" server. Personally, I'll
take the latter, but understand people's desire for the former. What was the
solution? (ponder ponder) I figured on a directive and then remembered the
"force-response-1.0" stuff in the .conf file.

I'll be implementing a BrowserMatch-based fix for the "avoid redirects on
non-GET requests". I think the default should be on, however. Just like we
enable force-response-1.0 by default, we ought to do the same for this case.

Otherwise, by that logic, we should tell web server admins that the default
install won't work for certain clients, but "oh, you can fix that for them
by tweaking your .conf". I'd much rather see that we work out of the box for
as many scenarios as possible, yet not lose the fact that we are making
special concessions to do so.

Obeisance to the RFC gods is nice, but it is still up to the client to say
"I was redirected to a different URL, so the one you gave me isn't DAV
capable." That doesn't violate RFCs, AFAICT. Let's let them work.

And note: since this will be a .conf issue, people developing *new* software
will have to fix their code since most servers won't have the right conf
magic. We do get to use our "hammer" on them.


Greg Stein,

View raw message