- From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:11:50 -0400
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
David Orchard wrote: > SAML problems with GET length is only because of having a > browser binding. Well, yes, but I fail to see the general usefulness of some of SAML (and all of Shibboleth) without one. ;-) > Every articulation I heard was because of browser constraints, ne'er > a server constraint to be seen. Presumably if one used a better > client library for connecting to servers, such as the case in > non-browser/server cases, there would be a different but higher length > restriction. Yes, and this is basically the case with servers. The limit tends to be longer, but it's not infinite, or even particularly large. The issues raised may have been client-only, but they aren't the only issues. The Shibboleth calls discussed both. I agree, however, that in the absence of a browser as the front end, the limit may be longer. I'm not sure how that really helps. If I know there's a limit at all (that's not really high anyway), I'm not going to risk it as a developer. > After some poking about on Apache, I found some interesting > configuration items. Of particular interest is the apparent 8k max on > a URI length. The documentation describes longer request lines as > abnormal client request behavior ;-) Sounds about on par with what I've seen elsewhere. > It seems to me that Apache servers that are targetted to > application clients could easily change 1 variable and much longer > GET + URI requests could be allowed, especially given that at least 2 > GB bodies are supported. > Surely a single default for Apache server can't be the > reason for not using GET requests from non-browser client apps to > servers. It's not at all clear to me that only non-browser clients are of interest here over time, but even if it were, Apache isn't the only web server. It's not as though I'm saying it can't be done; obviously all the clients and servers can be modified to relax the limits. Will they and when are the relevant questions. -- Scott
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2001 10:12:47 UTC