/ Zope / Apsis / Pound Mailing List / Archive / 2004 / 2004-02 / Q: about 'svc.c:upd_session()'

[ << ] [ >> ]

[ feature suggestions / Pavel Merdine ... ] [ New -current / Robert Segall ... ]

Q: about 'svc.c:upd_session()'
Alexander Lazic <al-pound(at)none.at>
2004-02-02 22:12:38 [ SNIP ]
Hi,

just for clarification, do i understand this right that you add the the
Session cookie _after_ pound read the response from server?

---
/*
 * (for cookies only) possibly create session based on response headers
 */
void
upd_session(GROUP *g, char **headers, struct sockaddr_in  *srv)
---

al ;-)

PS: What does you think about the SubCOOKIE answer?

Re: Q: about 'svc.c:upd_session()'
Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch>
2004-02-03 10:01:44 [ SNIP ]
On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 22:12, Alexander Lazic wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> just for clarification, do i understand this right that you add the the
> Session cookie _after_ pound read the response from server?

Yes. If no session cookie was found in the request from the client it
may still happen that a cookie is present in the back-end response. In
such cases the session tracking is started based on the response.

> PS: What does you think about the SubCOOKIE answer?

I'm still waiting for a good suggestion - I replied to the last one.
-- 
Robert Segall
Apsis GmbH
Postfach, Uetikon am See, CH-8707
Tel: +41-1-920 4904


Re: Q: about 'svc.c:upd_session()'
Alexander Lazic <al-pound(at)none.at>
2004-02-03 10:11:16 [ SNIP ]
On Die 03.02.2004 10:01, Robert Segall wrote:
>
>Yes. If no session cookie was found in the request from the client it
>may still happen that a cookie is present in the back-end response. In
>such cases the session tracking is started based on the response.

;-)) Cool solution.

>> PS: What does you think about the SubCOOKIE answer?
>
>I'm still waiting for a good suggestion - I replied to the last one.

Sorry but I don't get a answer to my last mail, is this the last answer
from me that you have?

---
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:33:18 +0100
From: Alexander Lazic <al-pound(at)none.at>
To: pound(at)apsis.ch
Subject: Re: Config grammar - RFC
Message-ID: <20040130073318.GA27032(at)none.at>

On Don 29.01.2004 16:38, Robert Segall wrote:
>
>That assumes that only one part of the cookie is relevant, and fails if
>you need a session based on more than that.

Thats right.

>I think we should either look at a full sub-pattern mechanism (for
>cookies AND URL based sessions) or drop the whole subject. Doing this
>sort of thing half-way is probably not a good idea.

You are right but this much more time investment, if you want to make it
i have some ideas about this:

1.) Session SubCOOKIE '$REGEX' $TIMEOOUT $MATCHED_PARENTHESES
2.) Session SubCOOKIE '$REGEX' $TIMEOOUT  => and Pound analyse the regex
    and lookup for matching parentheses
---

al ;-)

MailBoxer