https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #16 from Mark Thomas ---
Back-ported in:
- 9.0.x for 9.0.47 onwards
- 8.5.x for 8.5.67 onwards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 24/01/2019 18:26, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 1/23/19 16:55, VP Brand wrote:
>> On 23/01/2019 21:48, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
>>>
>>> --- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas --- Created
>>> attachment 36389 -->
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 1/23/19 16:55, VP Brand wrote:
> On 23/01/2019 21:48, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
>>
>> --- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas --- Created
>> attachment 36389 -->
>>
On 23/01/2019 22:42, Igal Sapir wrote:
> On 1/23/2019 1:56 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 23/01/2019 21:48, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas ---
Created attachment 36389
-->
On 1/23/2019 1:56 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 23/01/2019 21:48, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas ---
Created attachment 36389
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36389=edit
Tomcat 9 patch to
On 23/01/2019 21:55, VP Brand wrote:
Sorry. No idea why my mail client picked that senders address. I must
have hit the wrong button.
Mark
> On 23/01/2019 21:48, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
>>
>> --- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas ---
>>
On 23/01/2019 21:48, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
>
> --- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas ---
> Created attachment 36389
> --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36389=edit
> Tomcat 9 patch to retain app provided content-type
>
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas ---
Created attachment 36389
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36389=edit
Tomcat 9 patch to retain app provided content-type
The application provided content-type is only retained if no
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|enhancement
--- Comment #13 from Mark
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #12 from romain.manni-bucau ---
Hi guys,
isn't it possible to fix this issue since the space has this comment
(org.apache.tomcat.util.http.parser.MediaType#toString):
> // Workaround for Adobe Read 9 plug-in on IE bug
> // Can be
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #11 from Franos ---
Hello,
I have looked at that.
Thanks.
My worry is that it's scheduled for Tomcat 10.
We really need that on Tomcat 8.5.x and 9.x branches.
Best Regards.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Schultz ---
Note that this is being discussed on the dev list a bit. See r1846691.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #9 from Franos ---
Hello,
> Okay, so we have some clients that vitally depend upon the space being added
> and other clients that vitally depend upon the space *not* being added. Why
> should your clients win over the others?
I
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #8 from Mark Thomas ---
Chris, you make a good point about not mutating the value unnecessarily. I did
look briefly at what would be involved. It looks simple to do. My concern is
that it has broadly the same potential to trigger
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Franos from comment #6)
> What is quite disturbing to me is:
> - space character is optional as you mentioned
> - so why if, in the servlet code, you set a Content-Type with a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #6 from Franos ---
Hello Thomas,
I try to figure out what you're saying.
If I have well understood:
- If, in the Content-Type value you have a semi-column followed by a
string, you can have or not (because you mention it is
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas ---
I'll be clearer.
There is no Tomcat bug here.
Tomcat's response is consistent with what the Servlet requested and compliant
with RFC 7201.
You haven't explained what the problem is but the working
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #5 from Franos ---
Created attachment 36262
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36262=edit
The war to be deployed
Then target http://localhost:8080/MyServletReturningContentTypeWithComma/test
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #3 from Franos ---
Hello,
I can provide you a test case if you want ? Just tell me.
Best Regards.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
--- Comment #2 from Franos ---
Hello Mark,
Not sure to have really understand what you said.
You talk about charset but the content I want to deliver to the client is a
binary content.
My disappointment is that I set a content type for the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62912
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas
22 matches
Mail list logo
