I have contacted Cyrus Harmon for help. But I got no answer. Up to now i know hunchentoot has prepared post-parameters well. And i added the following line to hunchentoot-cgi to get right environment:
("CONTENT_TYPE" . ,(header-in :content-type *request*)) ("CONTENT_LENGTH" . ,(parse-integer (header-in :content-length *request*)))
The environment passed to python script is as below:
SERVER_SOFTWARE=hunchentoot/1.2.2 SERVER_NAME=127.0.0.1 GATEWAY_INTERFACE=CGI/1.1 SERVER_PROTOCOL=HTTP/1.1 SERVER_PORT=8000 REQUEST_METHOD=POST SCRIPT_NAME=/cgi-bin/nav.py QUERY_STRING=NIL CONTENT_TYPE=application/x-www-form-urlencoded CONTENT_LENGTH=31 POST_PARAMETERS=((userid . xyz) (userpwd . 123) (cmd . view)) PATH=/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/games:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/home/sw2wolf/bin REMOTE_ADDR=127.0.0.1 HTTP_HOST=NIL REQUEST_URI=/cgi-bin/nav.py SERVER_ADDR=NIL HTTP_USER_AGENT=Opera/9.80 (X11; FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE i386; U; zh-cn) Presto/2.10.229 Version/11.60 HTTP_REFERER=http://127.0.0.1:8000/
But the python script still cannot get the posted parameters: ((userid . xyz) (userpwd . 123) (cmd . view)). Having a look at the #'maybe-read-post-parameters in request.lisp, it seems hunchentoot doesnot write the posted parameters to *STANDARD_IN* ?
Sorry to disturb all of you, i will continue to wait for Cyrus Harmon's answer ...
在 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:37:01 +0800，Hans Hübner hans.huebner@gmail.com 写道:
Oops, the content-length of request bodies is certainly not variable when it is completely read by the web server, which would be the case for most CGI requests. So please disregard my previous comment.
If you want to move this further, you'll need to either discuss with Cyrus Harmon (hunchentoot-cgi's author) or try to fix the problem yourself. Please post observations you make about hunchentoot-cgi to the github issue that you have created, not this list.
Thank you. Hans
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:53 AM, z_axis z_axis@163.com wrote:
I have used `python -m CGIHTTPServer` to test the posted parameter:
{'SERVER_PROTOCOL': 'HTTP/1.0', 'SERVER_SOFTWARE': 'SimpleHTTP/0.6 Python/2.7.2', 'SCRIPT_NAME': '/cgi-bin/nav.py', 'QUERY_STRING': '', 'SERVER_NAME': 'myarch', 'REMOTE_ADDR': '127.0.0.1', 'CONTENT_LENGTH': '33','HTTP_REFERER': 'http://127.0.0.1:8000/', 'SERVER_PORT': '8000', 'CONTENT_TYPE': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded', 'HTTP_USER_AGENT': 'Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1', '_': '/usr/bin/python', 'HTTP_ACCEPT': ' text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8\r\n','GATEWAY_INTERFACE': 'CGI/1.1', 'REQUEST_METHOD': 'POST', 'REMOTE_HOST': 'localhost.localdomain', 'HTTP_COOKIE': '', 'PATH_INFO': ''}
Both content_length and content_length are different from hunchentoot.
在 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:21:16 +0800，Sebastian Tennant sebyte@smolny.plus.com 写道:
Quoth z_axis z_axis@163.com:
#'create-prefix-dispatcher [...] does not prepare both Content-Type and Content-Length [headers].
I don't use #'create-prefix-dispatcher (so I can't quickly test your assertion directly) but I can confirm that #'create-regex-dispatcher (which I use all the time) prepares a Content-Type header but doesn't prepare a Content-Length header.
Assuming #'create-prefix-dispatcher behaves in the same way, then your assertion is correct.
Hans, my understanding of the nuts and bolts of HTTP is pretty limited. What are the benefits of sending a Content-Length header? Is this something Hunchentoot should perhaps do?
Seb
tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
-- 使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/
tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel