On 1 Aug 2013, at 11:51 AM, Niphlod <niph...@gmail.com> wrote: > @derek and @dhmorgan: actually what Iceberg posted is fine, it's really a > subtle bug that needs to be addressed as per the docs posted by out own > omniscient Jonathan, that can happen with some particular (although allowed) > server architectures. > > @jonathan: before diving in rocket's own "patching of spec-breaking servers", > is there any other header we need to address ? > >
content_size is the other one in this category. A clarification, though: Rocket is not patching spec-breaking servers; it's just a server complying with the spec, which mandates content_type if the client has supplied one (which would optionally appear as http_content_type). A spec-breaking server would be one that does not include content_type when one is provided by the client. The bug is that web2py relies on http_content_type, even though the spec does not require the server to include it. My comment about working around a spec break is purely hypothetical, and applies to the case where the client provides Content-Type, and the server passes that along as http_content_type (as it should, but is not required to do) and does not also pass it as content_type (which it *is* required to do). -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
