26469 - Accept bytes is not supported

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 20851

(Core :: Networking, defect, P3)

Description

[av (gone)]

Gagan, I am filing this as a bug to make sure I keep track of things so make all 
necessary changes in plugin stuff when this support arrives. Please reassign it 
to whoever you think is appropriate.

Comment 1

[Gagan]

dependent on cache being able to handle the patching. 

Comment 2

[gordon]

I'm not sure what this bug is referring to.  I'd like to buy a clue.

Comment 3

[av (gone)]

At the point when I need to pass an http stream to the plugin I need to tell the 
plugin if the server supports byte ranges. Adobe Acrobat e.g. depends heavily on 
this. In 4.x there was a member in the URL struct so this info was easily 
acceccible whenever we know the URL. I need something to query about this at 
the time I need it. I talked to gagan and he told me that this is still to be 
implemented, so I filed the bug just to be notified when I can use it. If all 
this makes sense to you please correct the summary line to make it more 
specific.

Comment 4

[Warren Harris]

Moving what's not done for M15 to M16.

Comment 5

[gordon]

Gagan, what's involved here?

Comment 6

[Gagan]

In order to do byte-ranges we need a mechanism in the cache to be able to patch 
up previously requested (and aborted streams) As for Andreas' request I think 
maybe we can expand/export the server capabilities work that ruslan did, to 
allow for checking on byte-ranges and such... cc'ing ruslan. 

Comment 7

[ruslan]

Do we support byte ranges in the handler in the first place? I can extend 
capabilities, that's not problem.

Comment 8

[Gagan]

as far as the handler goes its just another header. The real patching up work is 
done either by the cache or the consumer (in this case the plugins) and so yes 
calling SetRequestHeader() with appropriate values for range requests should do 
the work. av let me know if that doesn't work for you-- I am leaving the 
original bug open and (to cache) to accomodate the same for caching. Also 
pushing this to M17

Comment 9

[davidm]

How does this differ from 20851? Is the use of offsets adequate to implement 
this feature?

Comment 10

[leger]

Putting on [nsbeta2+] radar. please try to complete work by 05/16.

Comment 11

[Gagan]

now that I see bug 20851 it is a dup. 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 20851 ***

Comment 12

[Tom Everingham]

verified duplicate