Jennifer, What is the version of Tomcat you are using? Even though, as Eric pointed out, Tomcat does not fully support the expect/continue handshake, last time I checked it at least did not produce any nasty side effects. Please let me know the exact version of Tomcat I'll re-test HttpClient against that particular version.
The complete wire/debug log produced with the latest HttpClient CVS snapshot might also be of help Oleg On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 18:57, Jennifer Ward wrote: > On Jul 15, 2004, at 1:09 AM, Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote: > > > > (1) Are you using SSL? > > No > > > (2) What's the JRE version you are using? > > Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_03-117.1) > > > (3) What web server you are targeting? > > We are using Apache Tomcat with Slide for WebDAV support. > > > > (4) Are you going through a proxy? > > I'm hitting the server directly at the moment. I will be going through > a proxy eventually. > > Jen > > > > > > Oleg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jennifer Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:49 > > To: Commons HttpClient Project > > Subject: Having some problems with "expect 100 continue" > > > > > > All, > > > > I'm now calling setUseExpectHeader(true) for my putMethod. However, I'm > > running into a few problems. > > > > First, when putting a 1 character text file (Content-Length: 3) it > > doesn't authorize and eventually I get the 'Maximum redirects (100) > > exceeded' exception. > > > > If I take a slightly larger text file (Content-Length: 7), then all is > > fine. However, I do get the INFO message: > > > > Jul 14, 2004 4:40:33 PM org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodBase > > processRequest > > INFO: Recoverable exception caught when processing request > > > > If I try to put a 1MB mpg file, the request appears to hang with: > > > > Jul 14, 2004 4:41:44 PM org.apache.commons.httpclient.HttpMethodBase > > writeRequest > > INFO: 100 (continue) read timeout. Resume sending the request > > > > Any suggestions? I did try this with the latest build of HttpClient > > also and had similar results. > > > > Thanks, > > Jen > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 18:10, Jennifer Ward wrote: > >>> On Jul 13, 2004, at 8:03 PM, Michael Becke wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Another way to handle this problem is to use the "expect 100 > >>>> continue" > >>>> feature of HTTP. This feature is disabled in HttpClient by default, > >>>> as only a few servers support it correctly. You can re-enable it by > >>>> calling setUseExpectHeader(true) on the post method. > >>> > >>> Yes, Oleg mentioned this a few days ago. It sounds like this feature > >>> still causes the request to get sent twice (even though the request > >>> body will not get sent if the server cannot receive it). I was hoping > >>> for a way to send each request only once (with the correct auth > >>> header > >>> the first time). > >> > >> Jennifer, > >> > >> This can be done if you are prepared to handle the entire > >> authentication > >> process manually (actually with HttpClient 3.0 it can be done quite > >> easily). The question is if it is really worth the trouble. It is > >> important to understand Digest authentication scheme is more secure > >> primarily because it involves frequent challenge-response exchanges. > >> The > >> server generates a nonce which is used by the HTTP clients to produce > >> the password digest. If the server is configured to change the nonce > >> too > >> often, that would basically defeat any sort of preemptive > >> authentication > >> mechanism, in the worst case rendering it even less efficient than > >> 'expect-continue' handshake. If the server is configured to keep the > >> nonce for too long, that would inevitably make Digest authentication > >> less secure. It is not impossible to strike a balance between > >> efficiency > >> and security. The question is whether the performance gains really > >> justify additional complexity > >> > >> Oleg > >> > >> > >>> I'm not having much luck with that though, so I may > >>> end up using the "expect 100 continue" feature after all. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Jen > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > *********************************************************************** > > **************************** > > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally > > privileged. Access to this email by anyone other than the intended > > addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of > > this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, > > retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on > > it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the > > sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof > > from your system. > > *********************************************************************** > > **************************** > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
