So it works with all of them up to _52 but fails for all of them after that.
I had a theory related to tomcat creating a webapps/ROOT dir in the newer versions that it didn't in the older one (when pointing to the war from Catalina/local/ROOT.xml) as a possible difference/change but _52 does this and it works there. We have a fairly simple (java servlet) proxy to pass the gwt REST requests along - is there anything I could look at... redirects, (not) caching params, etc ? Will have a look at the changes to the config files between working and non-working tomcat installs - and also the release notes. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Sean Dawson <seandawson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >> >> >
