Christopher Schultz wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 7/7/15 9:39 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 30/06/2015 21:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
This is probably off-topic now so marking as such.
On 29/06/2015 14:29, André Warnier wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
On 26/06/2015 19:37, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 22/06/2015 11:56, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 22/06/2015 09:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
<snip/>
Prompting for authentication in response to an untrusted
certificate is bizarre to say the least.
<snip/>
Progress, if you can call it that, has not been good. They have
now asked for additional network traces since:
<quote> ... to be able to understand what packets are sent by
client and what response did Server generate for the specific
packet, I would like to check a simultaneous trace on both
communication endpoints </quote>
I have just sent a very long, fairly stropy reply pointing out
the complete pointlessness of this request - not least because
the information they claim they don't have is right in front of
them in the form of the sequence and acknowledgement numbers in
the network trace.
This continues to drag on. The stropy e-mail got the issue
re-assigned to someone with marginally more clue. They put together
a test environment (with IIS instead of Tomcat) and then attempted
to demonstrate that the issue did not occur and hence it must be a
Tomcat problem.
"Our non-standard client works perfectly well with our non-standard
server. The fact that our non-standard client doesn't work with your
standards-compliant server obviously points to your software as the
problem."
Nice tautology you got there. It would be a shame if something were to
happen to it.
*sigh*
Well, if you're willing to continue to tilt at this particular
windmill, it would be a great service to the world. I'm not hopeful,
though, as WebDAV support in Microsoft Windows has degraded
consistently over the past 10 years and never improved. I don't know
why they even bother to /claim/ support for it anymore. Evidently,
nobody in the Microsoft world gives a rats posterior about WebDAV...
they all use SMB anyway.
However, once they had configured their environment to match my
original bug report (server using cert issued by CA client doesn't
trust, server configured not to require authentication) imagine my
lack of surprise when the problem was repeated with IIS. Needless
to say the other end of the conference call went very, very quiet
at that point.
The issue has now been passed to yet another support employee (I
refuse to call these people engineers) who apparently wants to
discuss the issue further. What they can possibly need to discuss
at this point I have no idea but having told them (again) how to
contact me I am waiting to hear from them.
I also discovered that - despite the conference call - the latest
support ticket update from Microsoft claimed the issue could not
be repeated with IIS.
It appears that the issue has been passed to the IIS team which
makes no sense at all since all the evidence points to this being a
WebDAV client bug and I have been making that point since this
whole sorry episode started.
The good news is that the IIS team is likely to refuse to accept
responsibility for the bug (because, by definition, IIS contains zero
bugs) and likely to pass the buck back to the WebDAV client team. If
you catch them at just the right time, you may be able to show MS how
to do their own jobs.
While I continue to appreciate the free MSDN license Microsoft
kindly provide to Apache committers, I must confess to being
completely unimpressed by Microsoft's support structures and count
myself fortunate that I don't have to run an IT infrastructure that
relies on them.
+1
With respect, you both don't get it. MS support is deliberately pitiful, to emphasize the
fact that MS software is by definition bug-free and does not really need support.
And to really bring the point home, MS seems to have plans to not name the next version
"Windows" anymore, but invent some other name. Now /that/ should allow them to definitely
start with a clean slate in their support database.
There might be an idea for Tomcat there.. "Bulldog" ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
