Remy Maucherat wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 12:51 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
"Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Test Case and 5.5.x patch can be found here.
http://people.apache.org/~fhanik/tomcat/b2c/
This is what is happening
int cnt=conv.read( result, 0, BUFFER_SIZE );
is called with a "while (true)" statement,
When the IntermediateInputStream.read returns -1, the above
statement
returns cnt==1.
So to avoid calling conv.read, we must check to see if we have
more bytes
to read by implementing the available() method, to avoid the
inputstream
ever returning -1.
It's possible, but I have a hard time understanding the issue.
The issue is that InputStreamReader reads 8192 bytes from
IntermediateInputStream on the first go. It then translates them
into 2734
chars, but thinks that the last few bytes represent an incomplete
char, so
holds onto them. On the next call, IntermediateInputStream returns
-1, so
InputStreamReader outputs the last char as best it can (resulting
in
returning 1). Then the IntermediateInputStream buffer is reset, and
it can
continue on reading (but from the wrong position, resulting in
corruption).
Filip's patch is inelegant (better would be to use the ByteChunk
sink), but
other than my looking for a better way to do it, I can't come up
with the
required technical reason to porting the base of it to 5.5 (of
course, I
could care less what he does in his sandbox :).
unfortunately, the "elegant" solution caused a regression :(
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44494
I tested this with the inelegant (original proposed) patch and it
worked
fine, so I'm gonna fix this in trunk and propose the patch to 6.0
Ok, and there's no time to think ? A patch must be applied within the
next 5 seconds ? (probably because it was not your patch, I assume :) )
the original patch was 4 lines of code change, that was considered
inelegant (as a matter of fact, it was dissed without even being looked
at), instead we made a more complex patch that caused regression. I
simply suggest that the simpler patch is easier to work with, and that
we make that available to the folks that want to patch their own version.
and available it is.
Filip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
