On 9 February 2010 15:26, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
> I've learned a lot from
> reading and participating in many discussions on this list, and I think
> you probably will, too, if you stick around.
I think many of us have learned a lot. Sometimes it's been technical,
sometimes on how to deal w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chas,
On 2/8/2010 10:24 PM, c...@munat.com wrote:
>> I'm unaware of any uses of PUT that automatically parse the request body
>> on behalf of the user's code. Instead, the user's code is typically
>> expected to handle the entire request body. Apache
Chris,
> I realize that this issue has been essentially solved, but it's probably
> worth it to continue the discussion.
Happy to continue if it's productive.
> I routinely use Firefox and LiveHTTPHeaders: that add-on definitely does
> indicate what is form data for a POST request, but I've neve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chas,
I realize that this issue has been essentially solved, but it's probably
worth it to continue the discussion.
On 2/8/2010 1:51 PM, c...@munat.com wrote:
> That was a response to smoke and hand-waving in another post and certainly
> nothing that
I posted it exactly as it came to me.
> On Saturday 06 February 2010 03:27:23 c...@munat.com wrote:
>> Are you serious?
>
> [...]
>
>> I'm certain you're not suggesting that browsers be forced to insert a
>> name
>> before the parameter string in every POST request.
> [...]
>> What does *any* of t
>> We were discussing RFC 2616. Entity-headers and entity-body are terms
>> directly from the RFC and are defined therein. No, they are not the same
>> as HTTP headers, though they are contained in the HTTP headers:
>
> To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.
That was a response to smoke and hand-waving in another
On Saturday 06 February 2010 03:27:23 c...@munat.com wrote:
> Are you serious?
[...]
> I'm certain you're not suggesting that browsers be forced to insert a name
> before the parameter string in every POST request.
[...]
> What does *any* of this have to do with a simple
> post to the list explai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
On 2/7/2010 5:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> I'll add an enhancement request to Tomcat 7. Because this is a grey area
> other folks using Tomcat may be expecting the data in the request body
> and changing that would break things for them. It will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chas,
On 2/5/2010 7:13 PM, c...@munat.com wrote:
> We were discussing RFC 2616. Entity-headers and entity-body are terms
> directly from the RFC and are defined therein. No, they are not the same
> as HTTP headers, though they are contained in the HTT
On 07/02/2010 21:27, c...@munat.com wrote:
>> I'll add an enhancement request to Tomcat 7. Because this is a grey area
>> other folks using Tomcat may be expecting the data in the request body
>> and changing that would break things for them. It will certainly have to
>> be optional. As to which sh
> Just to to clarify this point, the entity in the example wireshark trace
> you provided is in the request body, not the headers.
I wasn't aware that I had provided a Wireshark trace, but that's good to
know. (Wireshark would not install without a fight on my Mac, so my
brother ran the trace on h
On 07/02/2010 05:03, c...@munat.com wrote:
>> I have just re-read section 9.6 of RFC2616. My understanding of PUT was
>> (and still is) that the entity body provided is used to create/replace
>> the entity at the provided URI. This is how Tomcat handles PUT requests
>> (it enabled) in the DefaultSe
> I have just re-read section 9.6 of RFC2616. My understanding of PUT was
> (and still is) that the entity body provided is used to create/replace
> the entity at the provided URI. This is how Tomcat handles PUT requests
> (it enabled) in the DefaultServlet.
I agree that this is the intent of the
>> In fact, what is it with this list? Is this the PUT Haters Club?
>
> Mainly, it is your attitude. Given you are speaking to a community that
> provides assistance to other members of the community for free, a less
> argumentative tone would go a long way to help.
Ah. I think I see where the pro
On 06/02/2010 03:02, c...@munat.com wrote:
> I believe that via a post on another list I have discovered the source of
> the trouble:
>
> According to the servlet specification...
>
> The following are the conditions that must be met before post form
> data will be populated to the parameter set:
On 06/02/2010 02:27, c...@munat.com wrote:
> Are you serious?
>
> I don't generate request headers. The browser does. And they do so
> identically whether the HTTP method is PUT or POST and whether it's an
> XMLHttpRequest or not. And I suspect that they've been doing so pretty
> much since Marc A
I believe that via a post on another list I have discovered the source of
the trouble:
According to the servlet specification...
The following are the conditions that must be met before post form
data will be populated to the parameter set:
1. The request is an HTTP or HTTPS request.
2. The HTTP
Are you serious?
I don't generate request headers. The browser does. And they do so
identically whether the HTTP method is PUT or POST and whether it's an
XMLHttpRequest or not. And I suspect that they've been doing so pretty
much since Marc Andreesen was still in Champaign-Urbana and Mosaic was
s
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, wrote:
> PUT /json/members/1b35d32f-714d-4393-b8c2-b4805e0c7a13 HTTP/1.1
> Host: localhost:12344
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
> rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20091221 Firefox/3.5.7
> Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/x
REST -- REpresentational State Transfer -- is an architectural style that
was developed by Roy Fielding with HTTP, but which is independent of HTTP.
No changes need to be made to HTTP to implement REST -- you just need to
implement HTTP correctly. There's a pretty good article on Wikipedia about
RE
> Could you please be clear when you say "entity headers": do you mean
> HTTP headers? I have a Tomcat 6.0.20 install right in front of me that
> definitely does allow the servlet (in my case, a simple JSP that dumps
> requests) to read the HTTP headers. HTTP GET parameters are also
> correctly pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chas,
On 2/5/2010 2:45 PM, c...@munat.com wrote:
> So for Tomcat to unilaterally strip the entity-headers from a PUT request
> while passing only the optional entity-body seems just, well, wrong to me.
Could you please be clear when you say "entity h
c...@munat.com wrote:
...
So for Tomcat to unilaterally strip the entity-headers from a PUT request
while passing only the optional entity-body seems just, well, wrong to me.
For this reason, I'm guessing it's a bug.
Hi.
Just to situate things, I am not one of the Tomcat developers, merely a
> From: c...@munat.com [mailto:c...@munat.com]
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: Parameters disappear from PUTs]
>
> Read the entire section before you comment!
Sorry, I hadn't done that. As I said before, I believe your interpretation is
correct.
- Chuck
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CON
*quite clear* on the
difference between POST and PUT -- Roy Fielding, et al, did an excellent
job of it.
Can we, finally, let it rest there? (Pun intended.)
Chas.
>> From: c...@munat.com [mailto:c...@munat.com]
>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Parameters disappear from PUTs]
>>
>>
> From: c...@munat.com [mailto:c...@munat.com]
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Parameters disappear from PUTs]
>
> RFC 2616 is quite clear on this topic, IMO.
Maybe not.
> The POST method is used "to request that the origin server accept the
> *entity* enclosed in the request
es may have felt justified in providing such handling.
> The point I am trying to make is that if you create an application which
> depends on parameters being processed in a PUT request, you may well
> create an application which is not portable to all servlet engines or
> HTTP servers. B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chas,
On 2/3/2010 11:40 PM, c...@munat.com wrote:
> I am submitting forms to a restful interface using an HTTP PUT with the
> params in the header of the PUT. I believe that's normal, and it works
> just fine on Jetty. The params are definitely sent.
inal Message ----
Subject: Re: Parameters disappear from PUTs
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 05:03:10 -0800
From: c...@munat.com
To: a...@ice-sa.com
References: <2e9812dbea1d2cdeedb703759e39e602.squir...@mail.munat.com>
<4b6ac1cc.5020...@ice-sa.com>
By golly, you're right! Aren'
c...@munat.com wrote:
I am submitting forms to a restful interface using an HTTP PUT with the
params in the header of the PUT. I believe that's normal, and it works
just fine on Jetty. The params are definitely sent.
When I load my app into Tomcat 6 (Ubuntu), the form submission works
perfectly
manager being enabled by default.
>>
>> Just my two cents . . .
>>
>> /mde/
>>
>> --- On Wed, 2/3/10, c...@munat.com wrote:
>>
>>> From: c...@munat.com
>>> Subject: RE: Parameters disappear from PUTs
>>> To: "Tomcat Users List&qu
ugs database, there are many instances
> of people complaining about the security manager being enabled by default.
>
> Just my two cents . . .
>
> /mde/
>
> --- On Wed, 2/3/10, c...@munat.com wrote:
>
>> From: c...@munat.com
>> Subject: RE: Parameters disappear
om: c...@munat.com
> Subject: RE: Parameters disappear from PUTs
> To: "Tomcat Users List"
> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 10:43 PM
> OK, turns out my brother has
> wireshark installed. We ran it, and the
> packets are definitely getting to the server with the PUT
> p
OK, turns out my brother has wireshark installed. We ran it, and the
packets are definitely getting to the server with the PUT params intact.
So they arrive at the server, but they are missing from the output of the
valve. Does this mean Tomcat is hosed?
I thought maybe I'd test 24 on my laptop, b
>> From: c...@munat.com [mailto:c...@munat.com]
>> Subject: Parameters disappear from PUTs
>>
>> When I load my app into Tomcat 6 (Ubuntu), the form submission works
>> perfectly if I use a POST: the params are definitely received. If I
>> use a PUT, it works, but the parameters are missing
>
> 1)
> From: c...@munat.com [mailto:c...@munat.com]
> Subject: Parameters disappear from PUTs
>
> When I load my app into Tomcat 6 (Ubuntu), the form submission works
> perfectly if I use a POST: the params are definitely received. If I
> use a PUT, it works, but the parameters are missing
1) Tell us
36 matches
Mail list logo
