[squeak-dev] browseMcMethodRevisions Request-URI Too Large

Wed Oct 9 22:22:17 UTC 2019

Oh my, it appears I conflated PUT and POST, maybe the fix would be easier
than I thought then!

This is still far down on my list right now, though.  We should have a
backup for me, anyway.  I nominate Tim.   :)

 - Chris

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:49 PM Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Chris Muller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:41 PM Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu>
> wrote:
> >       On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> >
> >       > Hi All,
> >       > when trying to browse revisions for some long methods (some
> VMMaker methods are long) this often lead to failure Notifier.
> >       >
> >       > Indeed, it seems like {self serializeForRequest: aMCDefinition}
> is serializing the whole method source...
> >       >
> >       > You might want to try with
> SistaRegisterAllocatingCogit>>genSpecialSelectorComparison
> >       >
> >       > Whole reply is:
> >       >
> >       > HTTP/1.1 414 Request-URI Too Large
> >       > server: nginx/1.16.0
> >       > date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 20:55:41 GMT
> >       > content-type: text/html
> >       > content-length: 177
> >       > connection: close
> >       >
> >       > <html>
> >       > <head><title>414 Request-URI Too Large</title></head>
> >       > <body>
> >       > <center><h1>414 Request-URI Too Large</h1></center>
> >       > <hr><center>nginx/1.16.0</center>
> >       > </body>
> >       > </html>
> >       >
> >       > Is this (URI length) something we can tune at server side?
> >
> >       Yes, it could be tuned, but that wouldn't solve the problem. URIs
> should
> >       not be arbitrarily long.
> >       The proper solution would be to make the server expect POST
> requests with
> >       the content sent in the request body, and the image sending
> matching POST
> >       requests instead of GET request.
> >
> >       Btw, we had a discussion about this issue, but nothing happened
> since
> >       then.
> >
> >
> > It came up a couple of times this year.  Some background and the method
> needing fixed, in case someone has time to do it.
> >
> >
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2019-July/202772.html
>
> I doubt mixing PUT and POST requests is a good idea. It would be better to
> create a separate POST handler for this.
>
> Levente
>
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20191009/c93a5f01/attachment.html>