Reinhard Poetz napisał(a):
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I understand the reasons now but I still believe that Rice's usecase
is valid but I'm not sure how to solve his problem :-(
After some more thinking: What about a matcher that performs the
check? The only problem might be that we have to look
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Rice Yeh wrote:
Hi,
Here is another problem when using servlet protocol. A servlet S1
extends another servlet S2. A web continuation k is generated in S2.
When k returns back, k is matched in S1 with match pattern
"*.continu
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Rice Yeh wrote:
Hi,
Here is another problem when using servlet protocol. A servlet S1
extends another servlet S2. A web continuation k is generated in S2.
When k returns back, k is matched in S1 with match pattern
"*.continue" which exists in S2 a
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Rice Yeh wrote:
Hi,
Here is another problem when using servlet protocol. A servlet S1
extends another servlet S2. A web continuation k is generated in S2.
When k returns back, k is matched in S1 with match pattern
"*.continue" which exists in S2 also. Then comes an err
Rice Yeh wrote:
Hi,
Here is another problem when using servlet protocol. A servlet S1
extends another servlet S2. A web continuation k is generated in S2.
When k returns back, k is matched in S1 with match pattern "*.continue"
which exists in S2 also. Then comes an error with message like "k
Hi,
Here is another problem when using servlet protocol. A servlet S1 extends
another servlet S2. A web continuation k is generated in S2. When k returns
back, k is matched in S1 with match pattern "*.continue" which exists in S2
also. Then comes an error with message like "k bound to S2, but loo
