Thank you!

Gauthier

Le mar. 16 oct. 2018 à 20:49, Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> a
écrit :

> Looks good, pushed as f7ab8b59..9199e5aa (with updates to documentation).
>
> Happy hacking!
>
> Christian
>
> On 10/15/18 9:03 PM, Gauthier Haderer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I attached a patch which adds a response flag to force version to HTTP
> > 1.0 in
> > responses but still maintaining connection management.
> >
> > The existing MHD_RF_HTTP_VERSION_1_0_ONLY flag already changes MHD's
> > behavior to apply HTTP 1.0 rules for connection management. When
> > enabled, MHD sends a response using the same version as used in the
> >  request (is this normal?).
> >
> >  What I want is MHD responding as a HTTP 1.0 server with support for
> >  connection management headers would do. This is what the
> >  MHD_RF_HTTP_VERSION_1_0_RESPONSE response flag is for.
> >
> >  You can even combine it with MHD_RF_HTTP_VERSION_1_0_ONLY to change the
> > response's HTTP version while maintaining strict compliance with HTTP
> > 1.0 regarding connection management.
> >
> > This solution is not perfect as this flag is set on the response which
> > is created after header processing. So MHD will behave as a HTTP 1.1
> > server until the response is queued. It means that an invalid HTTP 1.1
> > request will fail even if the response is sent with HTTP 1.0 and the
> > request would be valid if interpreted with this version. For example,
> > this request will fail in strict mode:
> >
> > GET /dummy HTTP/1.1
> >
> > as the Host header is missing and is mandatory in HTTP 1.1, but it
> > should succeed when interpreted with HTTP 1.0.
> >
> > I don't think this is a big issue in practice. Besides, being able to
> > change the HTTP version on a response basis is really convenient when
> > using MHD in a test framework where I need to validate a client against
> > HTTP 1.1 AND HTTP 1.0 as I can start a single server for the whole set
> > of tests to run.
> >
> > Do you think this is something you could consider integrating mainstream?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Gauthier
>
>

Reply via email to