2068 has been replaced by 2616, so I'll use that as the basis for this
discussion.
To determine if this is compliant behaviour, there are a couple of
questions to answer.
1) Does a empty body qualify as a chunked body?
Chunked-Body = *chunk
last-chunk
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14643.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
If a Transfer-Encoding: chunked header is present, the body must at
least contain the last chunk, which is:
0CRLF
CRLF
Without the last chunk beeing present we can not detect if there is a
body at all! The last chunk not beeing present violates the RFC:
last-chunk has no asterix in front of
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16904.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Thank you for the directions for how to submit this problem... Attached are
the file I created.
Feedback to your patch:
It will buffer the whole response which is not good. Imagine a 1GB
response. You would not want this to be buffered, would you.
By using the Piped Streams I have limited the
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16892.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16892.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16729.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10809.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16907.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Jandalf
I have no problem compiling HttpClient with JDK 1.2.2 + JCE 1.2.2 + JSSE
1.0.3.01, as well as test cases. However, several examples require newer
JDK: PostXML, ClientApp, MultiPartUploadApp. Do you think examples
should also be JDK 1.2.2 compatible? I tend to believe they should
Cheers
Good point. In general, the examples should also baseline jdk1.2. If
there is a specific reason for using a 1.3 or 1.4 feature in some case,
than that would be OK as long as its clearly stated.
We would have to deal with that on a compilation level somehow as well.
Jandalf.
Oleg
Odi, Jeff
I tend to interpret the word of RFC the same way. However, the RFC
appears a bit fuzzy on whether it is permissible to include
Transfer-Encoding: chunked response header without actually providing
any content in response. Anyways, to an extent this is irrelevant. We
have to coexist with
Mike,
Looks really good to me. It's a welcome improvement, which will finally
allow for cookies to be put on a separate header line each
Great work!!!
Oleg
On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 00:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE
Hi Mike,
I'm concerned about having public methods in HttpMethodBase that
are not in the HttpMethod interface. These two public interfaces should
not diverge. I had this same problem in the past, where I added a
public method to the abstract class, and not the interface. Then I saw
user code
15 matches
Mail list logo
