> We're still shaking weird little bugs out of the ajp13 implementation(s),
> and people are relying on it for production use. I don't think we should
> muck around with the protocol itself.
>
> When ajp14 is developed, the spec should really contain a standard response
> for an "unknown packet", so new packet types (or messages) can be added to
> the protocol without breaking backward compatability. If we had this in
> ajp13, we could add some very nice things as negotiated features (e.g.
> encrypted and/or authenticated connections). However, because ajp13 has no
> way to respond to an unknown packet, the implementations generally behaves
> very badly if you send them something they're not expecting.
Hmm. How difficult would be to fix this ? After all, I guess all we need
is to add some code to behave nicely when unknown packets are received.
If we can get this into ajp13 implementation - then ajp14 may have some
backward compatiblities, and will be much easier to evolve.
( BTW, it would also be nice if ajp13 would call a unknown_packet
function, so later we may hook into this, without changing anything else )
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
