Thanks folks, I submitted the issue as a bug:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49779
Hans
2010/8/19 Christopher Schultz :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Pid/Hans,
>
> On 8/16/2010 5:53 AM, Pid wrote:
>> On 16/08/2010 09:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
>>> I'd like
Christopher Schultz wrote:
You'd be amazed how fast a
reproducable bug can be fixed ;)
Particularly if it can also be repeated or duplicated.
;-)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pid/Hans,
On 8/16/2010 5:53 AM, Pid wrote:
> On 16/08/2010 09:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
>> I'd like to provide more information. Any suggestions what is the best
>> way to accomplish that?
>
> See above, regarding trace log.
>
> Also, providing a stack t
On 16/08/2010 09:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
> I'd like to provide more information. Any suggestions what is the best
> way to accomplish that?
>
> Hans
>
>
> 2010/8/16 Pid :
>> On 13/08/2010 23:24, André Warnier wrote:
>>> Pid wrote:
On 13/08/2010 11:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
> 2010/08/12 20:20:17
I'd like to provide more information. Any suggestions what is the best
way to accomplish that?
Hans
2010/8/16 Pid :
> On 13/08/2010 23:24, André Warnier wrote:
>> Pid wrote:
>>> On 13/08/2010 11:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "HTTP/1.1 100
Continue[
On 13/08/2010 23:24, André Warnier wrote:
> Pid wrote:
>> On 13/08/2010 11:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
>>> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "HTTP/1.1 100
>>> Continue[EOL]"
>>> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "[EOL]"
>>> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] headers - << HTTP/1
Pid wrote:
On 13/08/2010 11:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "HTTP/1.1 100 Continue[EOL]"
2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "[EOL]"
2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] headers - << HTTP/1.1 100 Continue
2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire -
On 13/08/2010 11:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "HTTP/1.1 100 Continue[EOL]"
> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "[EOL]"
> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] headers - << HTTP/1.1 100 Continue
> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:796 CEST [DEBUG] wire - >> "te
Hans Wahn wrote:
Thanks for your friendly words and explanations.
Due to your thought the POST data of the first request may get
processed too late and mixup things, I altered the client source, so
the user credentials are only send after the inital call (on the
second request).
No, what I rea
Thanks for your friendly words and explanations.
Due to your thought the POST data of the first request may get
processed too late and mixup things, I altered the client source, so
the user credentials are only send after the inital call (on the
second request). Also the POST test data "testName=te
Hans Wahn wrote:
For the below, isn't there an alternative method of configuring the
client to automatically follow redirects?
I asked the same question and Oleg Kalniche (HTTPComponents developer) replied:
"There are several cases when automatic redirections is prohibited by the
HTTP specific
> For the below, isn't there an alternative method of configuring the
> client to automatically follow redirects?
I asked the same question and Oleg Kalniche (HTTPComponents developer) replied:
"There are several cases when automatic redirections is prohibited by the
HTTP specification. You can p
On 13/08/2010 11:52, Hans Wahn wrote:
> Thanks for looking into this issue.
>
>> What is the exact header & body of the 302 redirect from Tomcat in #2?
>
> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:750 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "HTTP/1.1 302 Moved
> Temporarily[EOL]"
> 2010/08/12 20:20:17:750 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "Serv
Thanks for looking into this issue.
> What is the exact header & body of the 302 redirect from Tomcat in #2?
2010/08/12 20:20:17:750 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "HTTP/1.1 302 Moved
Temporarily[EOL]"
2010/08/12 20:20:17:750 CEST [DEBUG] wire - << "Server: Apache-Coyote/1.1[EOL]"
2010/08/12 20:20:17:750
On 13/08/2010 10:07, Hans Wahn wrote:
> Hello Tomcat-Users,
>
> I'm facing a strange issue when using HttpComponents with successive
> POST requests against a simple Tomcat 7 servlet (Form-based POST
> Authentication is enabled). After a sucessfull authentication, the
> client requests the same pr
Hello Tomcat-Users,
I'm facing a strange issue when using HttpComponents with successive
POST requests against a simple Tomcat 7 servlet (Form-based POST
Authentication is enabled). After a sucessfull authentication, the
client requests the same protected resource a few times in a row, but
the sec
16 matches
Mail list logo