Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-test-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 25418 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2002 17:43:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact test-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list test-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 25396 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2002 17:43:48 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cancer.clove.org: jerenk set sender to jerenkrantz@apache.org using -f Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:43:51 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: test-dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] flood: basic user auth Message-ID: <20020904174351.GW16785@apache.org> Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz , test-dev@httpd.apache.org References: <20020904184039.30a14290.jacek.prucia@7bulls.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020904184039.30a14290.jacek.prucia@7bulls.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:40:39PM +0200, Jacek Prucia wrote: > http://localhost:8080/auth To me, this seems a fair enough compromise for right now as it seems some people really want this feature now. > I can also prepare round-robin-auth.xml, but it would then require > public resource protected (?) with well-known username and password. > Maybe somebody can setup such a beast on www.apache.org? ;) To be honest > I was thinking about http://httpd.apache.org/test/flood/test/ (yeah... > this url is stupid... it is supposed to be just a proof of concept) with > a bunch of files there. We could then demonstrate anything flood is That's perfectly okay with me. We can do all of that via .htaccess configuration. We can arrange for you to get the right access to the repositories and servers to setup this area. > capable of (regexp matches, failures, auth and this kind of stuff). With > such setup changes in google responses wouldn't be that bad ;)) Yeah, it'd ensure that our examples don't break on us. But, it's kind of cool to use Google in the examples. =) > BTW: This patch kinda suck. The proper way to do this would be to define > realms like this: > > > test > foo > bar > > 10 > Not sure we'd want delay in the realm (that seems more like a property of the URL not the auth realm), but yeah, I agree that this makes better sense. Yet, I don't see a need to hold up adding basic user auth support for this (unless you want to code it up first). > ...and react to WWW-Authenticate header just like browsers and other > tiny clients (like wget) do. And I think we want to mimic browser > behaviour. OTOH this brings up other issue -- an url list where we can > insert new urls in realtime (like is planned for 3xx responses), which > needs a bit more work... *sigh* Yeah, that's one thing we've always thought about, but never really implemented (allowing following of 3xx). If you wish to take a stab at it, be our guest. Almost certainly, we'd have to discuss it on-list first before coding it up. -- justin