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=26060.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On Sat, 2004-02-14 at 01:27, Emre Sokullu wrote:
Thanx again Oleg...
I didn't understand why redirection won't be allowed when old host and new
host are the same.
Forexample for one of my domains I made such a DNS arrangement :
www.mydomain.com -- A -- M.Y.I.P
mydomain.com --
Kaushik,
Usually java.net.UnknownHostException means that your DNS cannot resolve
a host name to its respective IP address. This problem has nothing to do
with form-based login or HttpClient as such. Please make sure that your
TCP/IP stack is setup properly.
Oleg
On Sat, 2004-02-14 at 02:09,
The final vote tally was 3 +1s with no objections. I will proceed with
creating the release.
Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since I'm a newbiethis struck me funny...a quorum is 3 people? How
many developers / committers are involved with HttpClient?
On Feb 15, 2004, at 10:51 AM, Michael Becke wrote:
The final vote tally was 3 +1s with no objections. I will proceed
with creating the release.
Mike
Brad,
There are currently four active committers. 3 votes are indeed enough to
secure a quorum.
Oleg
On Sun, 2004-02-15 at 17:47, Brad O'Hearne wrote:
Since I'm a newbiethis struck me funny...a quorum is 3 people? How
many developers / committers are involved with HttpClient?
On Feb
Though 3 votes is a majority in our case, a majority is not required.
Apache voting rules only require 3 +1 votes for a release to proceed.
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
Mike
On Feb 15, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
Brad,
There are currently four active
The Jakarta Commons HttpClient development team is pleased to announce
the release of HttpClient 2.0 final. This release represents a great
deal of work by quite a number of people. We would like to thank all of
those who contributed to this release.
This version contains only a few minor bug
Hi,
I have noticed significant performance difference between using
HttpClient and Socket.
I tried to use GetMethod to download a 2MB file from a Webserver sitting
in the LAN. When I do it with HttpClient, it takes around 13-15 seconds
while it will only take less than half a second with Socket.
Hi Ben,
I believe your HttpClient numbers are being inflated by one-time
initialization costs. I was able to get approximately the same numbers
with HttpClient and Socket. Please see my examples attached below:
Mike
HttpClient code:
HttpClient client = new HttpClient();
Hi Ben,
that is indeed a big difference. Two questions:
1. The HttpClient example uses IP address 192.168.0.1,
the Socket example connects to 192.168.0.11
Is that a typo, or do you indeed access a different host?
If that different host is a caching proxy, that would be an
Hello Ben,
I remember reading about problems with particular JVM versions,
and with stale connection checks in this mailing list. But I didn't
track these issues, so someone else will have to help out. Or you
check the mailing list archive and the bugzilla database for known
issues. There's a
12 matches
Mail list logo
