Hi Johan,
This exception occurs if you obtained the servletresponse via the
ServletResponse.getOutputStream() and are *trying *to obtained the writer
via ServletResponse.getWriter() at the same time. According to the javadoc
of ServletRespone you can either use getOutputStream or getWriter to write
the body:
Either this method or [EMAIL PROTECTED] #getOutputStream} may be called to
write the
> body, not both.
>
Jetty tracks this using an inner flag. This flag is only reset on the
ServletResponse.reset() method, which I believe is called at the end of the
servletrequestcycle.
If I look at Wicket's the WebResponse class I see several
ServletResponse.getWriter *and* ServletResponse.getOutputStream calls. You
can't mix those two when writing the servletresponse.
Maybe this helps with tracking where it goes wrong.
Cheers Lars
PS. The exception would have been IllegalStateException("WRITER') if you
obtained the ServletResponse.getWriter() and are *trying* to obtain the
ServletResponse.getOutputStream at the same time.
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> it was really a pretty rare exception
>
> 285154 [btpool0-9] ERROR org.mortbay.log - /undefined
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: STREAM
> at org.mortbay.jetty.Response.getWriter(Response.java:585)
> at
> org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebResponse.write(WebResponse.java:355)
> at org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.BufferedWebResponse.close
> (BufferedWebResponse.java:73)
> at org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter.doGet(WicketFilter
> .java:371)
> at
> org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter.doFilter(WicketFilter
> .java:194)
> at
>
> org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.doFilter(ServletHandler.java:1084)
>
> i have no idea how this exception can happen.
> It seems that there is already streamed something but then close does find
> also some stuff and wants to write it..
>
> That did result in an exception on close() so the unset wasnt called.
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Erik van Oosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Isn't this problem serious enough to release 1.3.4?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Erik.
> >
> >
> > Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > the only thing we found was the finalize block that could be skipped
> > because
> > > of an exception again in that block
> > >
> > > That is fixed in current 1.3.x branch (and 1.4)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Erik van Oosten
> > http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
