Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>>I do agree ErrorReportValve has a bug and shouldn't touch the
>>>response if 2xx status, but that's a different story.
>>>
>>Well, that's what I really care about.
>>
>
>Ok, so if I change "< 200" to "< 300" we'll all be friends, and everything
>will be fine ?
>That look
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Are you sure you are looking at the right source ? I'm pretty sure
>the PrintWriter is doing the buffering - most likely in the Char2Byte
>conversion.
>
>I did a lot of work on this area and I'm pretty sure I'm right on this,
>there is a 8k buffer for everything tha
reply down below
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
>Being somewhat familiar with the servlet specs (I've been on the expert
>groups for 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 :-), the following two scenarios have the
>potential to behave differently, depending on implementation-specific
>decisions inside both the servle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Steve,
>
>In 8916 - if you use:
>
>service() {
> w= new PrintWriter( response.getOutputStream );
> w.println(...)
>}
>
>If you don't flush, then you'll get no output.
>
>That's not because of the servlet spec - but because of the way
>PrintWriter works, it'll put y
Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>Question 1
>>Does servlet specification require you to call flush() to ensure that
>>the client actually see the bytes?
>> A. No, spec does not mandate this behavior for webapps.
>> B. "you have to flush your writer. Otherwise, because of timing
>>
lid on the specs, and would welcome
technical feedback, backed by relevent spec or RFC, to the contrary.
Hoping for some help from committers who can see this behavior is
wrong and needs to be changed.
I can submit a patch if anyone is interested.
(Ref: bugs 8831 and 8916.)
Thanks for reading this far,
Steve McCarthy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
