[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
billbarker2003/07/13 14:53:07
Modified:http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11 Tag: coyote_10
Http11Processor.java
Log:
Porting patch.
Ok, so TC 4.1.25 is dead ;-) I'm glad I didn't upload the binaries yet :)
Remy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
billbarker2003/07/04 18:39:42
Modified:http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11
Http11Processor.java
Log:
Reverting previous patch.
I included the code that httpd actually uses, in case somebody else likes the idea.
However, I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
luehe 2003/06/05 09:42:48
Modified:coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote Request.java
http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11
Http11Processor.java Http11Protocol.java
Log:
Removed setSocket() method from
Bill Barker wrote:
I'm very strongly -1 on this. The o.a.coyote.Request should not have a
set/getSocket method for the simple reason that there is no reason that
Coyote should be assumed to be tied to a socket transport.
I plan to test the memory only protocol handler someday. The Netbeans
folks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
remm2002/12/19 01:19:06
Modified:http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11
Http11Processor.java
Log:
- Same, but without the tabs ;-)
Oups, sorry.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
Bill Barker wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:44 AM
Subject: cvs commit:
jakarta-tomcat-connectors/http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11
Http11Processor.java
bobh2002/09/18 09:44:35
Bob Herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 13:58, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bobh2002/09/18 09:44:35
Modified:.gump.xml
coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote Request.java
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bobh2002/09/18 09:44:35
Modified:.gump.xml
coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote Request.java
http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11
Http11Processor.java
Log:
- This associates the
Remy Maucherat wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bobh2002/09/18 09:44:35
Modified:.gump.xml
coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote Request.java
http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11
Http11Processor.java
Log:
-
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bill Barker wrote:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:06:50 -0700
From: Bill Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cvs commit:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
In HTTP/1.0, looking at the Host header is non standard. We can look at it
if it is there (and I believe we do; if we don't it is very simple to change
that), but in the end the HTTP/1.0 protocol is inefficient broken in many
The Host header is not
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
-- Degrade to the socket port on HTTP/1.0 requests with a
Host header
but no port number.
if you are under a nat, dafaulting to the socket port maybe no correct,
you could have tomcat in 8080, and the request would be redirected
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Bill Barker wrote:
We do use the port number from the header, if the port is present. The
current code handles HTTP/1.0 clients much the same way as Http10Interceptor
does. Since the main HTTP/1.0 client that uses Tomcat is Watchdog, I don't
really like enforcing the
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
( this used to be in the 3.3-specific code, and is needed to construct
redirects, etc )
+//The info from socket is usually acurate
+// req.setServerPort(80);
That's not good. If no host is specified with
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
port if it is not the standard one.
But if the Host header is correct, it'll allways be the same thing as
the getPort on socket - if it's https on standard port, the port will
be 443 as the default, etc.
Even if the port in the host header
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Yes, that's what the fixed patch does.
So I did it right, I think :)
Thanks.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
16 matches
Mail list logo
