Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:44:59 -0700 wireproto: define content negotiation for HTTPv2
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:44:59 -0700] rev 37050
wireproto: define content negotiation for HTTPv2 HTTP messages communicate their media types and what media types they can understand via the Content-Type and Accept header, respectively. While I don't want the wire protocol to lean too heavily on HTTP because I'm aiming for the wire protocol to be as transport agnostic as possible, it is nice to play by the spec if possible. This commit defines our media negotiation mechanism for version 2 of the HTTP protocol. Essentially, we mandate the use of a new media type and how clients and servers should react to various headers or lack thereof. The name of the media type is a placeholder. We purposefully don't yet define the format of the new media type because that's a lot of work. I feel pretty strongly that we should use Content-Type. I feel less strongly about Accept. I think it is reasonable for servers to return the media type that was submitted to them. So we may strike this header before the protocol is finished... Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2850
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:15:10 -0700 hgweb: also set Content-Type header
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:15:10 -0700] rev 37049
hgweb: also set Content-Type header Our HTTP/WSGI server may convert the Content-Type HTTP request header to the CONTENT_TYPE WSGI environment key and not set HTTP_CONTENT_TYPE. Other WSGI server implementations do this, so I think the behavior is acceptable. So assuming this HTTP request header could get "lost" by the WSGI server, let's restore it on the request object like we do for Content-Length. FWIW, the WSGI server may also *invent* a Content-Type value. The default behavior of Python's RFC 822 message class returns a default media type if Content-Type isn't defined. This is kind of annoying. But RFC 7231 section 3.1.1.5 does say the recipient may assume a media type of application/octet-stream. Python's defaults are for text/plain (given we're using an RFC 822 parser). But whatever. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2849
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:57:43 -0700 wireproto: require POST for all HTTPv2 requests
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:57:43 -0700] rev 37048
wireproto: require POST for all HTTPv2 requests Wire protocol version 1 transfers argument data via request headers by default. This has historically caused problems because servers institute limits on the length of individual HTTP headers as well as the total size of all request headers. Mercurial servers can advertise the maximum length of an individual header. But there's no guarantee any intermediate HTTP agents will accept headers up to that length. In the existing wire protocol, server operators typically also key off the HTTP request method to implement authentication. For example, GET requests translate to read-only requests and can be allowed. But read-write commands must use POST and require authentication. This has typically worked because the only wire protocol commands that use POST modify the repo (e.g. the "unbundle" command). There is an experimental feature to enable clients to transmit argument data via POST request bodies. This is technically a better and more robust solution. But we can't enable it by default because of servers assuming POST means write access. In version 2 of the wire protocol, the permissions of a request are encoded in the URL. And with it being a new protocol in a new URL space, we're not constrained by backwards compatibility requirements. This commit adopts the technically superior mechanism of using HTTP request bodies to send argument data by requiring POST for all commands. Strictly speaking, it may be possible to send request bodies on GET requests. But my experience is that not all HTTP stacks support this. POST pretty much always works. Using POST for read-only operations does sacrifice some RESTful design purity. But this API cares about practicality, not about being in Roy T. Fielding's REST ivory tower. There's a chance we may relax this restriction in the future. But for now, I want to see how far we can get with a POST only API. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2837
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -3 +3 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 tip