B
brianlafertewk
Guest
I am currently testing a Classic Webspeed migration to PASOE using the CompatibilityHandler. This works generally well, but I have run into an issue with setting the Status header, and with location redirects. To demonstrate the issue I have a classic WebSpeed procedure called 'RedirectTest.w' that was created using the 'CGI Wrapper' template in PDS. I replaced the default process-web-request with the following code: PROCEDURE process-web-request : output-http-header ("Location", " Application Development and Deployment Technologies - Progress") . output-content-type ("text/html":U). END PROCEDURE. Executing this through WebSpeed Classic in Chrome (and Postman), the following header is returned, and the browser relocates to www.progress.com as expected: HTTP/1.1 301 OK Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8,text/html Location: Application Development and Deployment Technologies - Progress Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0 X-Powered-By: ASP.NET Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 13:27:57 GMT Content-Length: 146 Now, executing the same procedure through PASOE (using the CompatibilityHandler) returns, and does not redirect: HTTP/1.1 200 Status Code: 301 Location: Application Development and Deployment Technologies - Progress X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN Content-Type: text/html Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Encoding: gzip Vary: Accept-Encoding Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 13:29:24 GMT Notice the difference in the HTTP/1.1 portion of the header. In WebSpeed Classic we are properly getting back a 301, telling the client to do the redirect. In the case of PASOE the return is 200, which tells the client to display the body (which is blank). I have tried specifically setting the status code adding a first line like: output-http-header ("Status","302"). and output-http-header ("Status","302 Redirect"). but PASOE still hands the client back a 200. I have tried access PASOE through IIS/AJP13, and directly (straight shot to PASOE instance), and the response is the same either way (with some minor header changes). I have done some research on Tomcat to see if there might be some configuration issue, but I wasn't able to find anything. I didn't see anything in the Knowledgebase either. I could easily be overlooking something simple. Has anyone run into this? Any help is appreciated as this will block us from migrating old applications to PASOE. Thanks in advance, Brian
Continue reading...
Continue reading...