I wonder if there are any current UML diagrams available of the project?
Kind regards,
Charles Johnson
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are none that I am aware of.
Mike
Charles Johnson wrote:
I wonder if there are any current UML diagrams available of the project?
Kind regards,
Charles Johnson
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
OK - thanks. I'll try and make one if my TogetherJ licence hasn't expired!
CJ
- Original Message -
From: Michael Becke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Commons HttpClient Project [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: UML
There are none that I am aware of.
Mike
Hi,
I'm getting sporadic Software caused connection abort: socket write error
and I'd like to see if sending data via HTTP 1.0 instead of HTTP 1.1 will
prevent these (based on googling some of the mailing lists, this seems to be
the recommendation).
But I can't find out how to actually tell
Mark,
What version of HttpClient are you using? 2.0rc2 or 2.1-dev?
Oleg
-Original Message-
From: Mark Wilcox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 18:43
To: 'Commons HttpClient Project'
Subject: how to specify HTTP 1.0?
Hi,
I'm getting sporadic Software caused
But I can't find out how to actually tell HTTPClient to use HTTP 1.0 instead
of HTTP1.1?
As far as i remeber
HttpMethod m = ...;
m.setHttp11(false);
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
should a web server recognize the requestes if we do
this? I have seen a 403 forbidden when the version is
changed
--- Sven_Köhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I can't find out how to actually tell
HTTPClient to use HTTP 1.0 instead
of HTTP1.1?
As far as i remeber
HttpMethod m = ...;
this was when there was authentication on and instead
of a 401 there was a 403..
--- Sid Subr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
should a web server recognize the requestes if we do
this? I have seen a 403 forbidden when the version
is
changed
--- Sven_Köhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I can't
It makes sense if your server uses NTLM authentication (or any other authentication
scheme that requires persistent connections, the feature supported as of HTTP/1.1)
Oleg
-Original Message-
From: Sid Subr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 19:08
To: Commons
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=25264.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Hi. I found the HTTP-commons library and I was absolutely ecstatic! I
would appreciate some help though...I'm not sure how to coax it to send data
other than html...I've tried to set the request header to
method.setRequestHeader(Content-Type,content=\text/xml\); and it still
sends back 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=16881.
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=16881.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
I too use the HttpClient library to connect to a WebDAV server.
I suspect what you want to do is get the webdavlib.jar file from the
Jakarta Slide project. The library in the Slide project includes
support for all of the WebDAV DeltaV extensions to HTTP. I've worked
on both libraries to
Folks,
Any chance of getting 2.0rc3 out of the door before XMas? What do you
think?
Oleg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would appreciate a resolution to this bug:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25370
I personally think that the patch seems trivial enough that going for 2.0
(instead of 2.1+) is probably warranted.
Oleg: There were no comments from the list, so I assume there was nothing
Mike,
I'd rather see a full-fledged release. We have had too many quite
serious bugs since the last release that in my opinion should call for
another round of tests. However, since you'll have to bear the brunt of
the release process, I can certainly live with option two.
Oleg
And I would still like to go through the regular review process for the
2.1 branch and to secure an OK from at least another committer. In my
opinion the bug is not significant enough to be rushed. As to patching
2.0, I am not sure it is warranted. After all one MUST call
Oleg,
I was afraid you would say that :) You are correct though. The fact
that RC2 was totally broken in regard to authentication is a good
enough reason for a real RC3.
Let's try and get things together for RC3 this weekend. We have a
couple of days for testing and adding any last minute
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=16881.
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=25370.
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=25370.
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=25370.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
23 matches
Mail list logo
