https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #12 from Konstantin Kolinko 2011-10-20
10:39:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 27825
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27825
2011-10-20_tc6_51940_v3.patch
TC 6 version of the patch
In trunk these are r1181
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #11 from Konstantin Kolinko 2011-10-20
10:28:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > 1. I tried to test this in trunk, and replaying a POST request fails for me.
>
> That is a side-effect of r987955
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #10 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-19 18:02:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> 1. I tried to test this in trunk, and replaying a POST request fails for me.
That is a side-effect of r987955 which is not directly related to this bug
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #9 from Konstantin Kolinko 2011-10-11
13:15:18 UTC ---
1. I tried to test this in trunk, and replaying a POST request fails for me.
Using the following standalone HTML page:
[[[
http://localhost:8080/examples/jsp/security/prot
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #8 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-10 18:58:14 UTC ---
Thanks for the review. Those issues have been fixed.
Any proposal for back-port needs a minimum of 3 +1 votes from committers. Once
it has the votes, a committer (usually the prop
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #7 from Nicholas Sushkin 2011-10-10
17:29:14 UTC ---
BTW, in your change to 7.0, there seems to be a slight inconsistency in the log
message. In other log messages, when you say "context [{n}]", you pass
context.getName(). In t
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #6 from Nicholas Sushkin 2011-10-10
17:08:25 UTC ---
Perfect. I am glad Roy Fielding clarified the usage of request body in HTTP and
REST. It makes sense and the code is now simpler and more generic.
How does that request for
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-10 15:48:59 UTC ---
Thanks for the patch. I used it as the basis for the fox that has been
committed.
The fix has been applied to trunk and 7.0.x and will be included in 7.0.23
onwards.
The fix has
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-10 15:17:37 UTC ---
Try again, this time with the full message.
RFC 2616 explicitly discusses OPTIONS and a request body. However, any HTTP
request method may use a request body [1] although in many
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas 2011-10-10 15:13:20 UTC ---
POST and PUT are not the only methods that may have a request body. Request
bodies are described in RFC2616 for OPTION re
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #2 from Nicholas Sushkin 2011-10-07
17:40:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 27729
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27729
Patch fixing PUT handling with form authentication
Implemented Charles's suggestion
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
--- Comment #1 from Nicholas Sushkin 2011-10-07
17:06:46 UTC ---
Regarding "Re: Should Form Authentication Valve restore request body on a
PUT?",
on Friday, October 07, 2011 10:13:00,
Christopher Schultz wrote to Tomcat Users List
> Nic
13 matches
Mail list logo
