On 29/05/2014 16:27, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2014-05-29 18:39 GMT+04:00 <ma...@apache.org>: >> Author: markt >> Date: Thu May 29 14:39:25 2014 >> New Revision: 1598307 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1598307 >> Log: >> Simplify logic >> Call Response.recycle() from Response.reset() rather than in >> Response.reset(): >> - doing ~half of what recycle() does >> - calling ActionCode.RESET which resets the OutputBuffer which in turn >> calls Response.recycle() > > There are several places where ActionCode.RESET is used.
I thought I reviewed them but to be honest I have felt like I have been going around in circles at times with the connector code so I'll take another look. > Implementation of action(ActionCode.RESET) are different between > AbstractHttp11Processor and AbstractAjpProcessor. > I can track the above reasoning for HTTP only. > > I wonder why AJP behaves differently I half suspect there is no good reason. What has made cleaning up the connector code trickier is that implementations started as copy and paste and then diverged. That divergence went on for many years in some cases. Pulling it back together is taking time. > and suspect that this change may break it. My instinct is that it shouldn't. The behaviour of the coyote Response object should be independent of the Protocol in use. Equally, based on experience, there is a fair chance that something will have broken. Like I said above, I'll take another look. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
