On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Iain Hibbert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: > >> > One thing that I can't check, what would happen if the "obexapp client GET >> > -> remote" session get response did contain a Connection ID already, >> > would we send it twice? >> >> i'm not sure... i'm tempted to say no because header are parsed, i.e. >> we effectively move headers to another list (that is why we need >> reparse call). however, this is something that openobex library does >> internally, so, we need to test it. > > I thought about this and maybe it is a little clearer .. the object that > is handed to the stream read/write functions is in fact the base GET/PUT > command that openobex thinks we should be sending.. so it should be up to > us to add any Connection ID headers since openobex doesn't know about them
i agree, openobex does not seem to know (or particularly care) about "connection id" header. clearly, its up to the application to set it. >> would be really nice to try it again apple mac os x. those guys usually >> do things according to standards :) > > obexapp works against Mac OS X 10.6 (see 2.5Mb log of get and put with > connections from either side at www.netbsd.org/~plunky/obexapp-macos.txt) thank you. very interesting. it appears that for PUT "connection id" header only appears on the very first request. PUT-continue does not seem to have it. it appears that mac os x consistent with obexapp here :) GET, however, is different, we can see "connection id" header on both initial GET request and GET-continue requests. again, mac os x seems to be consistent with patched obexapp. also, GET-responses on both mac os x and patched obexapp do not contain "connection id" header. so, it looks like GET-continue request is the only odd case here. i wonder if this is basically wm6 obex server oddity/bug/feature :) > I also tried my wm6 phone against it and it works fine too but I don't > have a packet sniffer on the mac well, yes, mac os x does put "connection id' header onto GET-continue requests. basically, i think, the patch should be safe. thanks for the help Iain! thanks, max _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bluetooth To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
