Kathey Marsden wrote:
I seem to recall that the client also needed the same change in Reply.java. Could you check that?
It did, and I think the change is already in the patch (way down at the bottom of the patch).
In the test I think we should rename lob64KTable(bl blob(100M); to something more suited to its size.
Oops, sorry. Yes, I'll rename this. I pulled it from the JIRA entry when I first started writing the test, and forgot to change the name later.
When you repost your patch could you add a comment that I can use as a check-in comment.
Okay.
Could you also change the bug description to have the correct size instead of 64K?
Yep, will do. Army
