httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Garrett Rooney <roo...@electricjellyfish.net>
Subject Re: Bug #31228
Date Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:37:43 GMT
Geoffrey Young wrote:
> 
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> 
>>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>--On Friday, September 17, 2004 1:07 PM -0400 Garrett Rooney
>>><rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Could someone please take a look at bug 31228 in bugzilla?
>>>>
>>>>It's just adding a new response code (226) which is defined in rfc3229.
>>>>
>>>>I'm working on a module that implements a type of rfc3229 delta
>>>>encoding,
>>>>and it'd be nice if people didn't have to apply a patch to Apache in
>>>>order
>>>>to use it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>FWIW, I looked at it the other night and I'm mildly iffy on adding it.
>>
>>
>>Any particular reason?  It seems like providing support for the response
>>code specified in the RFC would only help encourage people to actually
>>implement support for it in Apache, which seems like a good thing to me...
> 
> 
> provided that garrett's patch is technically the correct way to add a new
> status code to apache, and that RFC3229 went through the proper motions to
> capture exclusive use of 226 within http, I don't see any reason why 226
> shouldn't be added in 2.1.

This sort of got dropped on the ground once Justin told me how to make 
my module work without explicit support for the status code in the core, 
and it's totally my fault for not pressing it, but I'd still like to get 
this in or to hear what the reasoning for not including it is.

So, uhh, ping?  Any comments other than "i'm iffy" and "is there any 
reason not to add it"?

-garrett

Mime
View raw message