httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Reiner <>
Subject Re: mod_proxy and Content-Length
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2002 18:48:11 GMT
Well, unless someone else registers some disagreement, it appears to be

 proxy should not monkey wth Content-Length (more correctly, proxy
 should depend on the filters to do any required chunked/C-L fiddling,
 and the filters should be responsible for always emitting responses
 which either are chunked or have a correct C-L header)

My team has also (more than once) had to hack proxy to deal with this,
but we don't currently have a well-tested patch against 2.0.43.

Does anyone else? or should we draw straws for who gets to write it?


----- Original Message -----
>Subject:  Re: mod_proxy and Content-Length
>From:     "Dave Seidel" <>
>Date:     2002-10-13 16:58:11
><lurk state="off"/>
>Pardon me for butting in here, but as someone who is building a product
>based in part upon Apache/mod_proxy, I *strongly* agree with Graham.  I've
>had to hack the mod_proxy code more than once to deal with this issue, and
>I'd rather not have to.  I agree that it should be entirely up to any
>modifying filter to be responsible for Content-Length changes.  The proxy
>itself should, IMHO, be always be considered a non-modifying passthough
>(with the obvious exception of proxy-specific HTTP headers, which
>Content-Length is not).
>- Dave
><lurk state=="on"/>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Leggett" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>; <>; <>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: mod_proxy and Content-Length

> wrote:
> > Problems with 2.0.42 and mod_proxy with Content-Length:
> >
> >   - 2.0.39 stripped C-L from all HTTP/1.0 responses.
> >   - 2.0.40 retained C-L on HTTP/1.0 responses for GETs, but stripped it
> > for HEAD.
> >   - 2.0.42 strips C-L from all HTTP/1.0 responses.
> >
> > Do people think that the 2.0.42 behaviour (stripping C-L from all
> > HTTP/1.0 responses) is correct?  The messages referenced below would
> > suggest not, but .42 has reverted to .39's behaviour.
> I don't think proxy should touch content-length at all.
> If a filter fiddles with content length, then it should be responsible
> for removing the content-length header as needed so that it can be
> readded later.
> Proxy doesn't change content-length in itself - so it really has no
> business touching it.
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> "There's a moon
> over Bourbon Street
> tonight..."

View raw message