Re: [dev-serveez] cgi problem

[stefan]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Raimund 'Raimi' Jacob wrote:

> > There one more thing you can try: In the file "http-cgi.c" in procedure
> > "http_cgi_accepted" you can replace "HTTP_ACCEPTED" by "HTTP_OK". If that
> > does not work it will take one more session at Raimi's home to validate
> > that it also does not work with the Apache installation on my laptop...
> 
> damit, using HTTP_OK works... IE plays like a charme... ela wants to check
> out what the RFC says...

I do not currently know about the actual reason why I implemented the
response using "202 Accepted". The RFC says:

=========================================================================
10.2.3 202 Accepted

   The request has been accepted for processing, but the processing has
   not been completed.  The request might or might not eventually be
   acted upon, as it might be disallowed when processing actually takes
   place. There is no facility for re-sending a status code from an
   asynchronous operation such as this.
=========================================================================
10.2.2 201 Created

   .
   .
   server MUST create the resource before returning the 201 status code.
   If the action cannot be carried out immediately, the server SHOULD
   respond with 202 (Accepted) response instead.
=========================================================================

When sending some cgi content the server can not sure about if the request
will be fulfilled or not. I guess that was one reason. The FRC states
also:

=========================================================================
10.2.1 200 OK

   The request has succeeded. The information returned with the response
   is dependent on the method used in the request, for example:

   GET    an entity corresponding to the requested resource is sent in
          the response;

   HEAD   the entity-header fields corresponding to the requested
          resource are sent in the response without any message-body;

   POST   an entity describing or containing the result of the action;
=========================================================================

Seems like "200 OK" is one correct answer to GET, HEAD and POST requests
(as used within CGIs).
All this is why we are going to use "200 OK" for these kinds of response
from now on. Any objections ?

Cheers,
        address@hidden