On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:32:36 +0400, Konstantin Kolinko
knst.koli...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/17 Felix Schumacher felix.schumac...@internetallee.de:
For the moment I have written a filter, which sets a default encoding,
as
soon as Response.setContentType(String type) is called and
On 18.06.2010 11:04, Felix Schumacher wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:32:36 +0400, Konstantin Kolinko
knst.koli...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/17 Felix Schumacherfelix.schumac...@internetallee.de:
For the moment I have written a filter, which sets a default encoding,
as
soon as
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:50:31 +0200, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de
wrote:
On 18.06.2010 11:04, Felix Schumacher wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:32:36 +0400, Konstantin Kolinko
knst.koli...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/17 Felix Schumacherfelix.schumac...@internetallee.de:
For the moment I have
On 18.06.2010 13:50, Felix Schumacher wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:50:31 +0200, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de
wrote:
On 18.06.2010 11:04, Felix Schumacher wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:32:36 +0400, Konstantin Kolinko
knst.koli...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/17 Felix
On 17/06/2010 15:23, Felix Schumacher wrote:
My Question now is, should I file a bug to enhance DefaultServlet? If so
would it be legal to include the patch from that discussion?
That is covered by section 5 of the ALv2, so yes it would be legal. Make
sure you correctly attribute it. I'd add
2010/6/17 Felix Schumacher felix.schumac...@internetallee.de:
For the moment I have written a filter, which sets a default encoding, as
soon as Response.setContentType(String type) is called and
type.startsWith(text/). That works for the moment, but I would prefer the
solution described in
