On 08.10.2010 11:14, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 10/08/2010 09:50 AM, Keiichi Fujino wrote:
Does it mean to rename MAX_PACKET_SIZE to MIN_PACKET_SIZE ?
Huh, I thought we enlarged the MAX_PACKET_SIZE to 65536.
We should have DEF_PACKET_SIZE=8192 (or MIN_PACKET_SIZE) and
MAX_PACKET_SIZE=65536
Currently we allow to set packet size to > 65536 which
is hazardous.
I think MAX_PACKET_SIZE was the old limit on AJP packets. Packets were
allowed of any sizes up to MAX_PACKET_SIZE. Buffers were always
allocated at that size, which was the mativation for the "<" comparison.
Later e added the ability to configure bigger maximum packet sizes and I
think there is no "maximum maximum packet size" on the Tomcat side. If
you want you can try to use monster sizes. In mod_jk we limit it to 64KB
(I forgot why).
So I think the code is OK, it depends on what your interpretation of the
"MAX" is. Renaming from MAX_PACKET_SIZE to DEFAULT_MAX_PACKET_SIZE
wouldn't harm except for moving the code further away from the previous
versions without any real benefit.
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
