I submitted a fix for this, and it has been accepted for release
5.5.24 and 6.0.14.
Bugzilla report: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42497
--
Len
On 5/16/07, Joe Mun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys... so according to the HTTP 1.1 spec (
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rf
On 5/19/07, Christopher Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Len, I recommend you cross-post this (if you haven't already) to the
tomcat-dev mailing list to see what they have to say.
I will do this, today if I have time.
--
Len
---
On 5/19/07, Christopher Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rashmi,
Rashmi Rubdi wrote:
> Thank you both for clarifying, I understand what you're saying.
[snip]
> And the definition of ETag :
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.19
>
> mentions entity-tag , which is al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rashmi,
Rashmi Rubdi wrote:
> Thank you both for clarifying, I understand what you're saying.
[snip]
> And the definition of ETag :
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.19
>
> mentions entity-tag , which is also the value
On 5/19/07, Christopher Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rashmi,
Rashmi Rubdi wrote:
>> 1. Spec says:
>> "The response MUST include the following header fields: ... - ETag
>> and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200
>> response to the same request"
>
> By *same requ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rashmi,
Rashmi Rubdi wrote:
>> 1. Spec says:
>> "The response MUST include the following header fields: ... - ETag
>> and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200
>> response to the same request"
>
> By *same request* , I thin
It's hypothetical. It says "*if* the header *would have* been sent in
a 200 response to the same request". I can know what Tomcat would have
done, because I've seen what it *does* do with requests that are
identical. In my test case, Tomcat *would have* included an ETag
header *if* it responded 20
On 5/19/07, Rashmi Rubdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Spec says:
> "The response MUST include the following header fields: ... - ETag
> and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200
> response to the same request"
Just to test this, I created a JSP and put a jsp:frowar
I might be wrong but I have a few doubts
On 5/19/07, Len Popp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you've got that wrong.
1. Spec says:
"The response MUST include the following header fields: ... - ETag
and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200
response to the same
I think you've got that wrong.
1. Spec says:
"The response MUST include the following header fields: ... - ETag
and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200
response to the same request"
2. ETag header *was* sent in a 200 response to the same request. (See
the header logs
On 5/16/07, Joe Mun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys... so according to the HTTP 1.1 spec (
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html), 304 Not Modified
responses must include the ETag in the header.
Well, according to RFC 2616's section 10.3.5 on 304 Not Modified
"- ETag and/o
18, 2007 3:10 AM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Missing ETag in 304 Header
>
> On 5/16/07, Joe Mun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi guys... so according to the HTTP 1.1 spec (
> > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html),
> 304 Not Modified
>
thias
> -Original Message-
> From: Rashmi Rubdi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:10 AM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: Re: Missing ETag in 304 Header
>
> On 5/16/07, Joe Mun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi guys... so according to the
On 5/16/07, Joe Mun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys... so according to the HTTP 1.1 spec (
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html), 304 Not Modified
responses must include the ETag in the header. However, Tomcat doesn't seem
to be adding it...
I am serving a static text file,
14 matches
Mail list logo
