https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56026
--- Comment #6 from Simone Bordet <simone.bor...@gmail.com> --- Konstantin, thanks for your comments. The "tricky buffering requirements" is actually a quote from the expert group. Given how simply you have implemented these "tricky buffering requirements", it is even more surprising that this burden has been put by the EG onto the shoulders of application developers, while it could have been on the container's. That is why I was hoping that this choice in Tomcat could have been reconsidered. After all, there is nothing in the specification that forbids an implementation to do this buffering, and this will - like Mark noted - make applications not portable (which is what happened to me - that's why I reported the bug). I'd prefer the container do the buffering for application developers, rather than having the application hardcode the buffering because the container implementers can perform optimizations or configure different policies for this buffering, easing up the job for application developers. Thanks! -- 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
