On 31/10/02 14:36 "Martin Algesten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Tomcat should either not send any headers on a 304, or if it does
> then make sure that they do reflect the correct values for the requested
> object (e.g. not call a gif a text).
>
> 2. Not entirely sure here. Reading the HTTP/1
Yup.. as I said, generally content-type changes might be ok. And yes I
have reported it as a bug.
Martin
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Martin Algesten wrote:
I don't see how chaning the Content-Type can be right in this
scenario (yes, generally content-type changes might be ok), can you
expla
Martin Algesten wrote:
I don't see how chaning the Content-Type can be right in this scenario
(yes, generally content-type changes might be ok), can you explain. If I
understood this correctly we are asking Tomcat if a specific object has
changed (If-Modified-Since), and any response should sur
I don't see how chaning the Content-Type can be right in this scenario
(yes, generally content-type changes might be ok), can you explain. If I
understood this correctly we are asking Tomcat if a specific object has
changed (If-Modified-Since), and any response should surely be true
about the r
Martin Algesten wrote:
1. Tomcat should either not send any headers on a 304, or if it does
then make sure that they do reflect the correct values for the requested
object (e.g. not call a gif a text).
Changing a Content-Type is legitimate, but changing the
Content-Length is probably not.
But
1. Tomcat should either not send any headers on a 304, or if it does
then make sure that they do reflect the correct values for the requested
object (e.g. not call a gif a text).
2. Not entirely sure here. Reading the HTTP/1.1
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.5
It
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 30/10/02 20:02, "Martin Algesten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a nutshell mod_proxy updates its cached entries with whatever new
headers are given to it. E.g. first request comes into mod_proxy and it
can't find the requested resource in its cache. It forwards on to my
On 30/10/02 20:02, "Martin Algesten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a nutshell mod_proxy updates its cached entries with whatever new
> headers are given to it. E.g. first request comes into mod_proxy and it
> can't find the requested resource in its cache. It forwards on to my
> tomcat who respo
In a nutshell mod_proxy updates its cached entries with whatever new
headers are given to it. E.g. first request comes into mod_proxy and it
can't find the requested resource in its cache. It forwards on to my
tomcat who responds with something like:
HTTP/1.1 200
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-
On 30/10/02 6:06 pm, "Martin Algesten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An incorrect If-Modified-Since response seems to shag mod_proxy. Now I
> don't know how widely used mod_proxy is, or if perhaps this should be
> fixed there instead. However I am concerned about this and as I pointed
> out I am ha
to
test your software before deploying it and that 4.1.12 can be
definitelly considered production quality for certain uses. There is
still a big difference between 3.3.1 and 4.1.12, the former seems to be
a more solid piece of software than the latter, and still they both
enjoy the same
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Martin Algesten wrote:
>
> 10373: I'm not convinced by the validity of the report.
> 13040: The spec is IMO not implementable, and most of the patches
> submitted were wrong. Hence, the issue is not fixed. Sorry.
> 13846: This is a minor bug (IMHO) which will need a rather
An incorrect If-Modified-Since response seems to shag mod_proxy. Now I
don't know how widely used mod_proxy is, or if perhaps this should be
fixed there instead. However I am concerned about this and as I pointed
out I am happy to look into it myself, however I would appreciate a hint
of what t
. Though a couple of
weeks ago I felt a need to start looking at new versions of all my
API's/products in order to make sure I stay on top of things and don't
end up with unsupported versions.
What do we mean with production quality?
According to the Tomcat project home page, 4.1.12 is
I stay on top of things and don't
end up with unsupported versions.
What do we mean with production quality?
According to the Tomcat project home page, 4.1.12 is a production
quality release, however using it in real life makes me question the
usefulness of such status. I've been moni
tay on top of things and don't
end up with unsupported versions.
What do we mean with production quality?
According to the Tomcat project home page, 4.1.12 is a production
quality release, however using it in real life makes me question the
usefulness of such status. I've been monitoring t
I stay on top of things and don't
end up with unsupported versions.
What do we mean with production quality?
According to the Tomcat project home page, 4.1.12 is a production
quality release, however using it in real life makes me question the
usefulness of such status. I've been moni
's all
"release >quality" software.
There are disclaimers in those licenses for a reason. Caveat Emptor and
all
that.
Regards,
Will Hartung
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics
-Original Message-
From: Martin Algesten [mailto:puckman@
t;There are disclaimers in those licenses for a reason. Caveat Emptor and
all
>that.
>
>Regards,
>
>Will Hartung
>([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics
>-Original Message-
>From: Martin Algesten [mailto:puckman@;taglab.com]
>Sent: Wedne
and don't
end up with unsupported versions.
What do we mean with production quality?
According to the Tomcat project home page, 4.1.12 is a production
quality release, however using it in real life makes me question the
usefulness of such status. I've been monitoring this list and also tr
.oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>-Original Message-
>From: Bojan Smojver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 3:44 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: TC 3.3, Production Quality
>
>
>I've n
om: "Bojan Smojver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:44 PM
> Subject: TC 3.3, Production Quality
>
> > I've noticed that on the main TC page of Jakarta site, TC 3.2.x is
> > still listed as production qu
No objection here.
- Original Message -
From: "Bojan Smojver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:44 PM
Subject: TC 3.3, Production Quality
> I've noticed that on the main TC page of Jakarta site, TC 3.2.x is
> s
I've noticed that on the main TC page of Jakarta site, TC 3.2.x is
still listed as production quality release, although we all know that
3.3 is far superior in almost any respect. That's for Servlet API 2.2
and JSP 1.1, of course.
Any objections if I change this?
Bojan
--
To u
24 matches
Mail list logo
