. This
helped determine that the fixes did the right thing.
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:33 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [was: RE: Spec Compliance:
> getRequest
IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Tomcat 3.2.2 [was: RE: Spec Compliance:
> getRequestedSessionId(), ...]
>
>
> After some further investigation into session ids and url
> rewritting I've
> found more places in the Tomcat 3.2 code that are using the requested
> session id as
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 6:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Spec Compliance: getRequestedSessionId(), ...
>
>
> The Servlet 3.2 API spec (PFD) attempts to clarify this some, but I think
> muddles it even further with some truly odd wording.
hate known spec failures.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans
> Bergsten
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 6:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Spec Compliance: getRequestedSessionId(), ...
>
>
> M
Marc Saegesser wrote:
>
> I'm reviewing Bugzilla bugs in preparation of the Tomcat 3.2.2 release.
> Bugzilla 160 has been open since Tomcat 3.1 and it looks like its real and
> that it violates the Servlet 2.2 spec.
>
> I want to make sure I am correctly interpretting the spec before I dig too
>
