https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53071
--- Comment #9 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Putting this caveat in the bug and not just on the dev list:
>
> I agree with Mark here.
> The change in r1348762 is in the place where ErrorReportValve prepares HTML
> text of the page. It does not affect other components. It does not affect
> components that display their own error pages. The old implementation
> already displays the exception, so nothing new is revealed.
Exactly, the same information but more prominent.
> I personally do not like use of "{0}" in the messages for the "description"
> field. Especially the ones for 404 and 403. It looks like some unrelated
> text is inserted into the middle of a sentence. With this change it is
> printed 4 times on the same page.
I personally dislike that one too in this valve.
In my opinion, the following should happen:
If message is not given: Message should be from
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-6.1.1 as per status code short name
and description should be a copy of the first sentence of the RFC description.
Maybe just as HTTPd does.
If message is given: Display message and show RFC description too.
Stack trace should be left as is.
It might make sense to limit the message length in the first line to n chars
and show the entire message in the message line. But if and only if the message
is to0 long. Otherwise the message line should be omitted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
