Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 20850] - POST is not defined in RFC 2068 and is not supported by the Servlet API
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 20850] - POST is not defined in RFC 2068 and is not supported by the Servlet API DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20850. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20850 POST is not defined in RFC 2068 and is not supported by the Servlet API --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-18 06:29 --- If you notice the response: HTTP Status 501 - Method ? ????amp;_?Z?O??4??m??f ?L???Xe9??g?? You'd see that the problem was that Tomcat didn't interpret the method name right (the binary content of your request was apparently read instead, hence the garbage). My opinion right now is that your request (or only some of them) is not valid. At least you'll have to produce a valid request example if you want to keep the bug open (or of course, you can investigate and try to see what's wrong). I don't think that you've really read the stack-trace. This is happening well into the Servlet.service method, so Coyote has obviously read the method fine. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 20850] - POST is not defined in RFC 2068 and is not supported by the Servlet API
- Original Message - From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:47 PM Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 20850] - POST is not defined in RFC 2068 and is not supported by the Servlet API Bill Barker wrote: I don't think that you've really read the stack-trace. This is happening well into the Servlet.service method, so Coyote has obviously read the method fine. Hmmm, I don't think so: service does the request name dispatching. And the status returned is 501, not 500. The read timeout may not occur on the same request. All in all, I'll leave to the reporter that he's sending valid requests. I think the report is bogus :) Without more details from the reporter, I certainly wasn't going to investigate it further :). At first glance, it just looked to me like one of the (few) cases where disableUploadTimeout should be false. However, I can't explain why this should give a 501 instead of a 500. Remy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
