https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #8 from Zemian Deng ---
I have added the isIoAllowed with action code check to the PR now. Please
review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #7 from Zemian Deng ---
Mark, thanks for all the tips. No problem, I can re-fix the imports for better
merge experience.
Yes, I agree that we should support just '%X' for now until users demands the
finer abort types, then we can a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
The updated patch looks good. Thanks. I noticed that the import order has
changed. If you could undo that it would be good but it isn't a big deal to fix
when the patch is applied.
Regarding tracking contain
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #5 from Zemian Deng ---
Mark, I see org.apache.coyote.AbstractProcessor#dispatch() starting line 205
contains error handling code that says "occurred on 'non-container' thread". Is
this where what you want to start tracking with a n
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #4 from Zemian Deng ---
I have pushed a new commit to the PR. Please review.
As far as adding "container initiated (rather than client initiated) aborts", I
will need to study some more before I can determine where to add the new r
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #3 from Zemian Deng ---
Hi Mark, yes hence the PR wasn't that big. :)
I saw the comment you made on GitHub, I will take a further look later and let
you know.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the b
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #2 from Mark Thomas ---
This is a lot simpler than I imagined. My expectation was that the various
places where errors can occur in in Http11Processor.service() would make this
tricky to implement. It looks like I was wrong. Becaus
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #1 from Zemian Deng ---
Hi there,
I have created a PR here (https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/70) for this
enhancement. Let me know what you think.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---
