DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39342>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39342 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED], | |[EMAIL PROTECTED], | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-21 19:05 ------- For what it's worth, Jeff Trawick pointed out this behavior in comment 15 on Bug 22030, but referred to it as an "issue to solve with mod_cgi[d]..." even though it "isn't something that many scripts have encountered...." (See http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22030#c15.) I hope I'm not making too much noise about an admittedly minor issue. (After all, servers are free to insist that scripts dispose of a big STDIN before writing a big STDOUT -- the CGI spec doesn't forbid it.) But, as Jeff pointed out, removing this limitation would permit some possibly interesting cgi behavior. And besides, the product would end up being that much more robust. Perhaps, rather than closing it as invalid, it would be more appropriate to lower this bug's priority or change its severity to "enhancement". If not remove the limitation, another useful resolution would be simply to document how big "big" is for the benefit of CGI programmers. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
