On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 16:49 +0200, Rainer Jung wrote: > So you propose to move the fix simply to HttpMessages.getMessage, which > should return with status code as string, whenever the StringManager > doesn't find a reason phrase. Correct?
The benefit is that it would fix the 3 connectors with one patch. The "drawback" is that it always generates a message. > > * Allow huge request body packets for AJP13. > > This was already applied to connectors, but never > > @@ -167,32 +171,34 @@ > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=697192&view=rev > > Original change: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=486217&view=rev > > +1: rjung, mturk, markt > > - -1: > > + -1: remm (- bodyMsg.appendInt(AjpConstants.MAX_READ_SIZE + packetSize - > > AjpConstants.MAX_PACKET_SIZE); looks wrong > > Before the change it was simply MAX_READ_SIZE. After the change, if our > actual configured maximum packet size (A=packetSize) is bigger or > smaller than the default one (B=MAX_PACKET_SIZE) we adjust the read size > accordingly by the delta A-B. > > Phrased diffferentyl: > > MAX_READ_SIZE = MAX_PACKET_SIZE - H_SIZE - 2; > > So > > MAX_READ_SIZE + packetSize - MAX_PACKET_SIZE = > MAX_PACKET_SIZE - H_SIZE - 2 + packetSize - MAX_PACKET_SIZE = > packetSize -H_SIZE - 2 In your code there is packetSize <=> MAX_PACKET_SIZE. I had MAX_READ_SIZE = MAX_PACKET_SIZE - whatever_the_header_length_is, so I don't see how it should not become MAX_READ_SIZE <=> packetSize - whatever_the_header_length_is. > > + - not sure why forcing AjpConstants.MAX_PACKET_SIZE; either > > this shouldn't be done or the constant name should change) > > The constant MAX_PACKET_SIZE is equal to the previous value of 8192. If > one wants to use another size, there is another constructor, which > inlcudes the size and sets it correctly. This one here is deprecated, > but for me the reason why the 8192 was there, was that it's the usual > AJP packet size. Since we already had a constant for that, I replaced it. > > Yes the name of the constant doesn't reflect it's use now in all places. > It is the DEFAULT_MAX_PACKET_SIZE. At the moment there seems to be no > maximum enforced (with the patch), but there is one (implementation > dependant) on the client (native) side, and if you use non-default > values, you need to keep them in sync on the two sides. > > Do you think we should rename MAX_PACKET_SIZE to DEFAULT_MAX_PACKET_SIZE? I am tired of hearing about AJP problems. Rémy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
