> The problem is with the port info present in the host header, that is
> lost, and subsituted by the local por used in the connection.
Got it. :-)
That could be bad in settings with port mapping (a common situation as soon
as a firewall is involved).
> > T32 does support HTTP/1.1 host name based virtual hosting...
> > (RFC2616/19.6.1.1)
> AFAIK Tomcat32 standalone, is a HTTP 1.0 Server,
I agree with you. I didn't found any statement in the doc/ files as for
Tomcat being either HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 compliant, though that didn't prevent
implementation of features only defined in 1.1.
But maybe knowing that wouldn't help that much. I didn't found anything
neither, in both RFC, relevant to that issue. Did I miss something?
Let says that the URI should be one that work in most cases :-), (though
there were other concerns for redirections being made through absolute
URI)...
As far as I can say, using the host name / port name sent by the user agent
is a good bet, as the request did reach Tomcat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
