Bill Barker wrote:
"Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill Barker wrote:
"Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill Barker wrote:
"Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Test Case and 5.5.x patch can be found here.
http://people.apache.org/~fhanik/tomcat/b2c/
This is what is happening
int cnt=conv.read( result, 0, BUFFER_SIZE );
is called with a "while (true)" statement,
When the IntermediateInputStream.read returns -1, the above statement
returns cnt==1.
So to avoid calling conv.read, we must check to see if we have more
bytes to read by implementing the available() method, to avoid the
inputstream ever returning -1.
It's possible, but I have a hard time understanding the issue.
The issue is that InputStreamReader reads 8192 bytes from
IntermediateInputStream on the first go. It then translates them into
2734 chars, but thinks that the last few bytes represent an incomplete
char, so holds onto them. On the next call, IntermediateInputStream
returns -1, so InputStreamReader outputs the last char as best it can
(resulting in returning 1). Then the IntermediateInputStream buffer is
reset, and it can continue on reading (but from the wrong position,
resulting in corruption).
Filip's patch is inelegant (better would be to use the ByteChunk sink),
but other than my looking for a better way to do it, I can't come up
with the required technical reason to porting the base of it to 5.5 (of
course, I could care less what he does in his sandbox :).
I've committed the fix to 5.5, if you find a more elegant way of solving
the actual problem, feel free to revert it and commit another fix. I
don't care about the how, as long as there is a fix that will be
included in the tag 5.5.25 on Friday
No problem. I can see how to do this better, but I'll wait until the
weekend to commit (since it's not totally trivial, I don't want a one-day
window for regression testing :). That way 5.5.25 can go out with your
patch. It doesn't include the NIO dependancy (which was my only
concern), so it works well enough for me for now.
according to the KISS principle, your fix would have to be less than 4
lines changed to be "more elegant" :)
Yes, it is more than 4 lines, but most of them are deletes :). I've done it
already on my local machine here, in case anybody wants RTC on the 5.5.x
branch (and Filip's test case passes with flying colors :). I'm pretty much
sure that there are no regressions for 5.5.x+, but I still need to look at
3.3.x, and 4.1.x.
If anyone is interested, I can post the patch files. Otherwise, I'll assume
that CTR is still in place, and you can veto it when I commit over the w/e
;). Of course, if this message was meant as a pre-emptive veto, then I
won't bother.
it's your choice if you want to commit it before or after the tag today.
If you wanna commit it before, then we are counting on your vote :)
Filip
Filip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
