"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> For the record, 3.0 was not my idea, but I went along with the majority by not
> vetoing it. However, that's almost totally irrelevant -- the same people who
> assume a 3.0 release *must* be stable are those that assume a 1.0 release must
> *not* be -- whereas the label itself has zero impact on the facts of the matter.
I didn't say I'd consider 1.0 unstable. I'd expect a 1.0 release of
Tomcat to be complete, compliant and solid. this 3.0 release of tomcat
is a joke. and my point is that this is not good for the OS community.
> > among all the things that are not working properly:
> >
> > - response.setHeader("Content-Type", "foo/bar"); does not set the
> > content-type
>
> Are you by chance calling it at the wrong time (i.e. after the response is
> committed to the output stream)?
I don't think I'm doing anything illegal, I've reduced it to a sample
JSP file containing simply:
<%
response.setHeader("Content-Type", "foo/bar");
%>
and it still fails.
I'm not sure if this is compliant with the spec, but on the same
conditions response.setContentType works. so I guess one of them is
wrong.
jm.
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe: mailto [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body: "signoff JSP-INTEREST".
FAQs on JSP can be found at:
http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/faq.html
http://www.esperanto.org.nz/jsp/jspfaq.html
