Am working on testing the 8 versions between the one that works and the one
that doesn't.

We use tomcat to host our gwt/restygwt app - gwt rpc calls work (as far as
we've tested) - restygwt REST calls to another process (jetty server -
RestEasy) work up to the point of that PUT request (which isn't alot of
them, but it's getting to the server and some succeed). There's almost no
info to go on when the gwt app doesn't proceed - fiddler says the call
succeeded with a 200 - but no data returned - and so the gwt app that
should proceed on onSuccess or onFailure, does not. So with the restygwt
async calls, we're not receiving anything back - despite fiddler claiming
that the call completed with 200 status (this can all be on the same
machine - but once you put the two processes or different ones using
different client browsers - sometimes get the other messages indicated).
So the problem might lie with RestyGwt - but that's not what changes
between the working and non-working scenario.

Thanks for info from the spec.



On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Hassan Schroeder <
hassan.schroe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Sean Dawson <seandawson2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In any case, people do it - and it was working before.
>
> Uh, "people do" lots of objectively wrong things in web development,
> and "works in some circumstances" ≠ "adheres to the spec"  :-)
>
> My reading of the RFC (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#page-21) is
> that there's no reason to expect a response-body from a PUT, even
> if the mention of returning either 200 or 204 is a bit ambiguous.
>
> So it wouldn't surprise me to see a server implementation discard a
> response-body from a PUT as invalid.
>
> FWIW,
> --
> Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.schroe...@gmail.com
> http://about.me/hassanschroeder
> twitter: @hassan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to