Hi, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 14:45, Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV wrote:Nick, I submitted the three votes I thought you needed last time this issue came up.No, this is different. Patching a release marked "stable" (i.e. 2.0) requires 3 votes from apache committers. That requires two committers (other than myself) to review the code and agree it works (or, crucially, at least doesn't break things that work now:-). With 2.1/2.2, that's not marked stable, and I've already committed the patch for that.With respect to the "ProxyPassReverse in Location" problem, I do not really see the relationship to ProxyPassReverseCookie(Domain|Path) unless we are talking about the same patch ??The patch I'm now proposing is the same. Both issues should be fixed, and it's easier to patch both at once than do them separately.Are we talking about backporting your patch (id=11917) or (id=15543) ? I tested the former, not the latter.This'll be the patch I posted to the dev mailinglist recently. See the post I referenced.
On the ProxyPassReverse in Location bug - this was a show-stopper, end of story, for us. If Nick hadn't fixed this (under consultancy) we'd have been looking at products other than Apache. It only shows itself when there's 'broken' code on the server issuing redirects to partial URLs. I'm sure we know that that's not allowed (according to the HTTP standards), but people still do it (including manufacturers of the commercial software we're using). Making ProxyPassReverse work within a 'Location' resolves this problem and as Nick said we've been using it in production since January and not had any problems.
On the cookie rewriting - initially we weren't worried about this as we didn't see any need for cookie rewriting. Just last week I had to add another backend server behind our accelerator and it had a path (other than '/') in the cookie path. I then tried applying the patch for bug #10722 and needless to say it wouldn't apply cleanly (with the ProxyPassReverse patch that Nick supplied) !!! Either way around, the two patches collided. Obtaining the patch didn't seem overly easy either, as it's split into three parts (the patch itself and two documentation patches).
Given the revised patch that Nick supplied that resolves both of these issues we're once again running things happily in production.
It would make life a lot easier if this was part of the main code. Please vote for it !!!
Neil.
--
Neil Hillard hillardn@xxxxxxxxx
Westland Helicopters Ltd. http://www.whl.co.uk/
Disclaimer: This message does not necessarily reflect the
views of Westland Helicopters Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|