DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20850>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20850 POST is not defined in RFC 2068 and is not supported by the Servlet API [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Component|Unknown |Connector:Coyote HTTP/1.1 Resolution| |INVALID ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-23 07:44 ------- As I said, unless you are very careful about closing the connection after each request, you could end up with part of a previous request (here, some binary data) being interpreted as part of the next request HTTP header. So it becomes quite random. I think Coyote is quite conservative in the request delimitation handling, but there are situations where it can't be made to work consistently when dealing with a slightly broken client. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
