It should be mentioned in the migration guide, but it isn't a bug, it's a change in the method signature.
--tim On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Robert Brewer <rbre...@lava.net> wrote: > Ioannis Mavroukakis wrote: > > Hi Robert, you say "most" so that makes me assume some of them work. > > What are the functional differences between the ones that do work and the > > ones that don't ? > > I tracked down the problem to some code I used to add an additional HTTP > header. I found the code here: > > http://blog.arc90.com/2008/09/15/custom-http-response-headers-with-restlet/ > > Here is the offending code: > > Form responseHeaders = > (Form) > getResponse().getAttributes().get(HeaderConstants.ATTRIBUTE_HEADERS); > if (responseHeaders == null) { > responseHeaders = new Form(); > getResponse().getAttributes().put(HeaderConstants.ATTRIBUTE_HEADERS, > responseHeaders); > } > // The following line causes server to send empty replies on Restlet 2.1 > RC5 > responseHeaders.add("Access-Control-Allow-Origin", "*"); > > I switched to the method explained here: > > > http://restlet-discuss.1400322.n2.nabble.com/Adding-response-headers-in-restlet-2-1-x-td7240340.html > > and now things work OK. Should I open a bug for the previous method? At > the very least it should be mentioned in the 2.1 migration guide. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=2982983 > ------------------------------------------------------ http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=2983458
