Chad Grube wrote:
I can see both PUT requests in the Tomcat access log that records HTTP
requests received by the server. I am assuming that these requests are
logged prior to being serviced by the WebdavServlet.

Certainly funny. Which Windows version are you using?


I have implemented my own Content store and I can see that my
createContentRevision method is also invoked twice (and therefore my store
does go on to create two copies of the file). I do NOT see this same
behavior with DavExplorer as the client. I have yet to try an OOB slide
server to see if I get the same behavior, I will do that now.

What is an OOB Slide server?

-Chad

Sorry about sending to the wrong list, this is my first time posting to the
slide lists.

No problem at all, just wanted to tell you...

-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Zeigermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:41 PM
To: Slide Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: Windows Explorer Problem

What makes you sure two requests have been issued? What is displayed on
standard out? Maybe it is just logged twice? Do you have two versions
afterwards?

Oliver

P.S.: This is something that should be handled in the user list rather
than in this one. Please reply in the user list.

Chad Grube wrote:


Sorry, Slide 2.0 w/ Tomcat 4.1.3.

-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Zeigermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:22 PM
To: Slide Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: Windows Explorer Problem

Which Slide version are you using?

Oliver

Chad Grube wrote:



All,

I am having the following problem:

When I copy and paste into a WebFolder that is mapped to a Tomcat Slide
server, I can see from the Tomcat logs that the PUT request is being sent
twice. I would think that this was simply a Windows Explorer bug, but when

I


perform the same copy and paste into a WebFolder that is mapped to an

Apache


Dav server I only see one PUT request.

I don't see why (or how) Windows Explorer could be sending different
requests based on the server side implementation.

Has anyone seen this before, or does anyone have any ideas as to why this
may be happening?

-Chad




--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]




--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to