httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Regression with range fix
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:18:56 GMT

On Aug 31, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jorton@redhat.com] 
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 31. August 2011 11:13
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Regression with range fix
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>> The first regression report, though slightly too late for the vote:
>>> 
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825
>>> 
>>> The byterange_filter.c in the Debian update is exactly the one from 
>>> 2.2.20. I will keep you updated.
>> 
>> Hi; I'm just back from holiday and catching up.
>> 
>> The behaviour changes in the patch which could feasibly break 
>> non-compliant clients are:
>> 
>> a) using 200 in some cases where a 206 response would end up being 
>> larger
>> 
>> b) using a chunked response where previously C-L was always used, in 
>> cases where >=32 ranges are being returned
>> 
>> Anything else to watch out for?
>> 
>> Looking at the patch in 2.2.x; there is a lot of effort expended 
>> deadling with apr_bucket_split() returning ENOTIMPL - that looks 
>> unnecessary; the filter will only handle brigades containing buckets 
>> with known length, and all such buckets "must" be _split-able.
> 
> So you think we can rip out the whole if (rv == APR_ENOTIMPL) blocks?
> 

Belt and suspenders?


Mime
View raw message