Yes, Undertow should respect the redirect response code. Stuart On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:43 AM, electrotype <electrotype(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev

Looks like this was an oversight, we added support for this in the Wildfly HTTP upgrade support, but not websockets. I have added support for this into the 1.4.x and 2.0.x branches (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/UNDERTOW-760). Stuart On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:52 PM, electrotype <electrotype(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev > _______________________________________________ > undertow-dev mailing list > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev