Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-Id: <s0bef1c9.032@sinclair.provo.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:39:07 -0600
From: "Brad Nicholes" <BNICHOLES@novell.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>,<nd@perlig.de>
Subject: Re: ErrorHeader directive...
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

  Since there is a proposal to backport this directive to the 2.0 branch, =
would it make more sense to rename it to something else and avoid the =
confusion before it is backported?  It just seems a little strange to be =
getting an error header back in a successful response.  If the point is to =
allow a specific header to be returned for all responses, we should =
probably expand the options for the Header directive rather than add a new =
directive.

Syntax: Header set|append|add|unset|echo  header [value [env=3D[!]variable]=
] [persist]

persist=20
The response header with this name is included even on errors and persists =
across internal redirects.=20


Brad

Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com=20

>>> nd@perlig.de Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:02:25 PM >>>
* "Brad Nicholes" <BNICHOLES@novell.com> wrote:

>    If an ErrorHeader is defined, shouldn't it only be included on
> non-200 http responses (ie. only on 3xx,4xx,5xx responses as the
> documentation states)?

No. The documentation states:

| This directive can replace, merge or remove HTTP response headers *also*
| during 3xx, 4xx and 5xx replies.

It's a kind of a misnomer anyway (named after r->err_headers_out).

nd
--=20
"Eine Eieruhr", erkl=E4rt ihr Hermann, "besteht aus einem Ei. Du nimmst
das Ei und kochst es. Wenn es hart ist, sind f=FCnf Minuten um. Dann =
wei=DFt
du, da=DF die Zeit vergangen ist."
                             -- Hannes H=FCttner in "Das Blaue vom Himmel"