On 07/19/2010 07:16 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 18/07/2010 23:50, Rainer Jung wrote: >> On 18.07.2010 02:02, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> On 18/07/2010 00:57, ma...@apache.org wrote: >>>> Author: markt >>>> Date: Sat Jul 17 23:57:23 2010 >>>> New Revision: 965150 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=965150&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Restore pero's timeout fix for the BIO connector. Add configuration >>>> of the timeout. >>> >>> Servlet TCK (with BIO) and unit tests pass as of this commit. >>> >>> It is looking like timeouts are going to be required to fix >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49567. The complete >>> fix is going to require some refactoring and I'm not quite there. It >>> does look like most of the fix for >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49528 is going to end >>> up being reverted. >>> >>> Also, need to check the NIO and APR timeout async requests. >> >> I'm not totally sure, but after JFC's heads up that the TCK fails > > What heads up where?
That was more than 2 weeks ago. I need to retest with the actual code. > This stuff should be on the dev list. A simple "The > Servlet 3.0 TCK fails with the XXX connector." is fine on the dev list. > > Which test with which connector? It was with APR. > I did only check with BIO. > >> I had >> a short look at the async timeout runnable. My impression was, that the >> default value for the timeout is "-1" and this would let the timeout >> condition in the runnable always trigger. > >>From the top of page 14 of the servlet 3.0 spec: > > AsyncContext.setTimeout(long)... A value of 0 or less indicates that the > asynchronous operation will never time out. ... > > I couldn't find an explicit default. Can't find it too.. Why not using 0 (for ever) or 1 minutes (to prevent bad applications). Cheers Jean-Frederic --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
