[undertow-dev] Redirects during the handshake of a WebSocket upgrade request

[electrotype]

Are you saying it is something you will probably implement in a future release?

Is there an issue I can follow?

Thanks for the help.

Julien

On 2016-07-04 22:13, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> Yes, Undertow should respect the redirect response code.
>
> Stuart
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:43 AM, electrotype <electrotype at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see some people think the HTTP request for a WebSocket upgrade shouldn't
>> honnor 301/302 redirects. But the spec seems to say it is ok:
>>
>> "If the status code received from the server is not 101, the
>> client handles the response per HTTP [RFC2616] procedures.  In
>> particular, the client might perform authentication if it
>> receives a 401 status code; the server might redirect the client
>> using a 3xx status code (but clients are not required to follow
>> them), etc.  Otherwise, proceed as follows."
>>
>> "The server MAY redirect the client using a 3xx status code
>> [RFC2616].  Note that this step can happen together with, before,
>> or after the optional authentication step described above."
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455
>>
>> In the version of Undertow I use, 1.2.12.Final, I see that the redirect
>> response is handled by org.xnio.http.HttpUpgrade :
>>
>> private void handleRedirect(final HttpUpgradeParser parser) {
>>      List<String> location = parser.getHeaders().get("location");
>>      future.setException(new RedirectException(msg.redirect(),
>> parser.getResponseCode(), location == null ? null : location.get(0)));
>> }
>>
>> Is it the same behavior in most recent Undertow releases?
>>
>> Related discussion: https://github.com/sta/websocket-sharp/issues/42
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Julien
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> undertow-dev mailing list
>> undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev