I'd like to hear from Hans before we close the report. He was able to
duplicate the problem but I wasn't. If he's running tomcat_321_final then
that would be expected, if he's using tomcat_32 latest and still seeing the
problem then something else is wrong.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:21 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
>
>
> So you cant found a buggy behavior, it's solved by the previously pathc
> aplied , isn't it?
>
> I will close that report , and declare it resolved, if nobody
> complains..
>
> Sorry i read exactly the inverse of your message, that is you can probe
> the buggy behavior :-),
>
> Saludos ,
> Ignacio J. Ortega
>
>
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Marc Saegesser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 15:12
> > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Asunto: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
> >
> >
> > I cvsup and build from source several times a week to make
> > sure none of the
> > changes going in have any detrimental effects on my application. I'm
> > testing with the latest on the tomcat_32 branch.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:03 AM
> > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > > Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has
> > been filed.]
> > >
> > >
> > > Hola Hans , Marc:
> > >
> > > You are using 3.2 from CVS???? AFAIK i did apply a patch 2
> > oe 3 weeks
> > > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619
> > #653 #513 ,
> > > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i
> > will revise
> > > BugRat to close related bugs , if you agree it's already resolved..
> > >
> > >
> > > Saludos ,
> > > Ignacio J. Ortega
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Mensaje original-----
> > > > De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Hans
> > > > Bergsten
> > > > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 8:46
> > > > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Asunto: Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has
> > been filed.]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marc Saegesser wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding BugReport #744. I've been trying to duplicate it
> > > > on my Win2000
> > > > > system and haven't had any luck. I always get back the
> > > > executed page. Has
> > > > > anyone else been able to duplicate the problem behavior?
> > > >
> > > > I actually tested it today (on a Red Hat 7 system, but I
> > doubt that
> > > > matters)
> > > > and was able to reproduce it easily; just make a GET request
> > > > without the
> > > > protocol. I haven't had a chance to try to figure out why
> > yet though.
> > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Hans
> > > > --
> > > > Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
> > > > Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
