On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 06:59:37PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > On 26.11.2009 22:06, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > On 11/19/2009 04:58 PM, Joe Orton wrote: > >> Yes, I agree, this seems very sensible, I can't see any problem with > >> this. > >> > >> I would prefer to do it in a slightly more general way as below, which > >> would catch the case where any other module's connection filter had > >> buffered the data, and adds appropriate logging. > >> > >> (more general but which required half a day tracking down an obscure bug > >> in the BIO/filters, also fixed below...) > >> > >> Testing on this version very welcome! > > > > Anything that prevents this from committing? > > Ping, Joe?
Sorry - trying to keep too many plates spinning at the moment: Done in http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=891282 Regards, Joe
