EVE Search - PLEASE MAKE API SERVER RFC2616 COMPLIANT

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Technology Lab

PLEASE MAKE API SERVER RFC2616 COMPLIANT

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Gilbert T Gallente Entropians on Vacation	Posted - 2008.09.06 21:04:00 - [1] according to the RFC: 4.2 Message Headers HTTP header fields, which include general-header (section 4.5), request-header (section 5.3), response-header (section 6.2), and entity-header (section 7.1) fields, follow the same generic format as that given in Section 3.1 of RFC 822 [9]. Each header field consists of a name followed by a colon (":") and the field value. Field names are case-insensitive. The field value MAY be preceded by any amount of LWS, though a single SP is preferred. Header fields can be extended over multiple lines by preceding each extra line with at least one SP or HT. Applications ought to follow "common form", where one is known or indicated, when generating HTTP constructs, since there might exist some implementations that fail to accept anything beyond the common forms. ...but the API server doesn't recognize "host" or "HOST" (only "Host"). I don't know if it has problems with other header fields or not. Is it possible to correct this problem so that I can complete my Qt classes for the Eve API without reimplementing the entire HTTP protocol class?
Gilbert T Gallente Entropians on Vacation	Posted - 2008.09.08 18:48:00 - [2] Originally by: Chibisuke Edited by: Chibisuke on 08/09/2008 18:15:01 Seams you need to bug report to microsoft then. Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:10:55 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0 X-Powered-By: ASP.NET X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727 I wouldn't dare using IIS in any production enviornment anyway, but it seams the admins of CCP don't have any security concerns, so... Bug report to Microsoft - LMAO I'm not familiar with this ASP.NET. I figured it was some part of that visual studio dot net crap and possibly something CCP could fix on the API server. I didn't see the "server: IIS" part in the header. My problem here is that I can use curl and it will work fine (on *nix) but I was hoping to make API classes that would work on any platform, using the Qt classes. The Qt classes rely on standards compliant http servers, though, which the API is not. I'm kind of lost as to what to do next. The MS bug report sounds like a waste of time, and the CCP bug report obviously won't end in IIS being fixed. I can't really see them switching to apache or something either... Does anyone have any idea how to proceed?
Gilbert T Gallente Entropians on Vacation	Posted - 2008.09.08 19:06:00 - [3] After I stopped laughing at the 'file a bug report to microsoft' comment, I decided that even though I was almost sure it was a joke I would check into the possibility... As I suspected, filing a bug report with Microsoft is nearly impossible, if possible at all. And since I don't own any Microsoft products, it would probably cost me hundreds of dollars just to attempt to file one that nobody would ever do anything with... So, unless the problem can be corrected from the API server's scripts, it sounds like maybe the only way it will be corrected is for CCP to use a different web server for the API scripts. (at least based on the limited information I have) So, what are the odds?
Gilbert T Gallente Entropians on Vacation	Posted - 2008.09.09 00:51:00 - [4] Edited by: Gilbert T on 09/09/2008 00:56:23 Edited by: Gilbert T on 09/09/2008 00:52:34 For those who care, I have now filed a bug report. I don't know if anyone else can see it, but here is the URL to it: (link removed - others can't view it apparently)
Gilbert T Gallente Entropians on Vacation	Posted - 2008.09.10 18:58:00 - [5] Originally by: CCP Lingorm We are aware of this, but have no plans to work round the issue. Longer term we are actually looking to migrate the API to a Web Service (fully standards compliant) as it provides us a number of benefits and development improvements. I'm curious of what "longer term" might mean in this instance... I could spend a fair amount of time reimplementing the QHttp classes to deal with the server, or just wait it out and finish my QEVEAPI classes once the server is fixed. Just a general idea, like "maybe not for a few years" or "probably in the next month or 2" would be fine.
Gilbert T Gallente Entropians on Vacation	Posted - 2008.10.22 15:58:00 - [6] I think the XML is great, I just wish the web server would function as it should. It seems that libcurl is equipped to deal with its handicaps, though, so I just made a Qt libcurl wrapper and I'm doing fine. It just sucks that my library will now be libcurl dependent when Qt already has HTTP protocol classes. To just add to the trivia, RFC2616 was published in June 1999. I guess the guys at Microsoft must have forgotten to read it...

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.