Op maandag, 5 oktober 2009 00:47 schreef "André Warnier" <a...@ice-sa.com>:

Christopher Schultz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> > Ronald,
> > On 10/2/2009 9:20 AM, Ronald Klop wrote:
>> But I don't send any data. My servlet than waits in getParameterMap(),
>> because that try's to read the inputstream and parse the parameters.
>> After 20 seconds (Connector has connectionTimeout="20000") the reading
>> of the inputstream ends, but my application just gets an empty Map in
>> stead of some TimeoutException.
> > What leads you to believe that a TimeoutException would be thrown? The
> documentation for the HTTP connector's "connectionTimeout" attribute says:
> > "
> The number of milliseconds this Connector will wait, after accepting a
> connection, for the request URI line to be presented. The default value
> is 60000 (i.e. 60 seconds).
> "
> > You provided the URI line within plenty of time. If you didn't enter
> anything, Tomcat would disconnect. Since you did, it doesn't.
> ...
Doesn't the fact that the read on the inputstream returns, imply that there is 
actually a timeout, even if it is not returned to the webapp ?

And, to Ronald : if the request is a POST, and it has a Content-length, and you 
get an empty parameter map after 20 seconds, can't you just reject the request 
as invalid ?

And, curiosity : if you set the Connector timeout to 30 seconds, does your 
inputstream then return after 30 seconds too ?






Yes it implies there is a timeout, but it is kind of guessing if it was a 
timeout or really an empty ParameterMap for the webapp. This can be 
workarounded by always including a dummyvar in the parameters as Christopher 
Shultz mentions or checking the Content-Length. But maybe Tomcat can do 
something better internally.

Yes if I set the connector timeout to 30 seconds it returns after 30 seconds.

My other workaround is doing a GET ajax in stead of POST. For this case the url 
wouldn't be too long for Internet Explorer and than more data is send at once 
over the network.

Ronald.

Reply via email to