I left them off because they were the same. The only difference is they are a second apart.
[Fri Nov 13 08:32:07.359 2009] [1916:2244] [debug] jk_ajp_common.c (1259): 0000 03 1F F8 61 63 74 69 6F 6E 3D 31 26 6E 61 6D 65 - ...action=1&name [Fri Nov 13 08:32:08.218 2009] [1916:2244] [debug] jk_ajp_common.c (1259): 0000 03 1F F8 61 63 74 69 6F 6E 3D 31 26 6E 61 6D 65 - ...action=1&name Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > Hmmm, that one I'm not sure, because after the "inde" there are only > null bytes. Since the beginning of the packet is not shown, I'm not > sure, but likely the "inde" was just the end of the body data of the AJP > packet. > I agree. I was just pointing out the fact that if you ignore the null bytes, the body content continues in the next packet after the header information for the two "working" packets. Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > The bytes after "inde" are all "00", could simply be the end of gthe > packet body. > That makes sense. Rainer Jung-3 wrote: > > Right, that looks wierd. I assume you didn't leave any line in theis > block out from the mail. > That's correct, it's in the log the same way. So is there any way to trace Tomcat to see how it's handling the requests from mod_jk? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Apache-Tomcat-Connector-%28AJP13%29-is-corrupting-html-content-tp26320290p26343224.html Sent from the Tomcat - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
