httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bug #31228
Date Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:21:09 GMT
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:37:43 -0500, Garrett Rooney
<rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> 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"?

+1 (concept; implementation not verified)

Mime
View raw message