On 04.07.2010 22:11, Peter Roßbach wrote:
Hmm,
Spec says:
public boolean isAsyncStarted() - Returns true if async processing
has started on this request, and false otherwise. If this request has been
dispatched using one of the AsyncContext.dispatch methods since it was
put in asynchronous mode
Hmm,
Spec says:
public boolean isAsyncStarted() - Returns true if async processing
has started on this request, and false otherwise. If this request has
been
dispatched using one of the AsyncContext.dispatch methods since it was
put in asynchronous mode, or a call to AsynContext.complete is m
On 01.07.2010 18:42, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 01.07.2010 17:20, Marc Guillemot wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
...
I run a daily test and just looked to what breaks it and complain.
Now I am looking to Peter's application to find what is broken.
so you're the continuous integration server ;-)
Hi Jean Frederic,
I also detect this strange behaviour. Then I fix it at JioEndpoint.
I check the async timeout feature today and it also works at
NioEndpoint.
Can I check the APR Connector with a normal TomcatTestCase?
Peter
Am 02.07.2010 um 16:49 schrieb jean-frederic clere:
On 07/02
I am very sure the NIO and APR Connector affected, but I don't have
find a fix.
Peter
Am 02.07.2010 um 19:48 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 02/07/2010 15:15, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 07/02/2010 03:08 PM, Marc Guillemot wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
...
Exact details are forbidden, but I'm sure
On 02/07/2010 15:15, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 07/02/2010 03:08 PM, Marc Guillemot wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
...
Exact details are forbidden, but I'm sure there'll be some information
as soon as someone had time to dig into it.
this was exactly what I feared. This is an additional argumen
Hi Jean-Frederic,
had you check my test case TestAsyncListener?
Can you checkin or send me your test case.
Peter
Am 02.07.2010 um 15:15 schrieb jean-frederic clere:
On 07/02/2010 03:08 PM, Marc Guillemot wrote:
Rainer Jung wrote:
...
Exact details are forbidden, but I'm sure there'll be so
On 07/02/2010 03:08 PM, Marc Guillemot wrote:
> Rainer Jung wrote:
>> ...
>> Exact details are forbidden, but I'm sure there'll be some information
>> as soon as someone had time to dig into it.
>
> this was exactly what I feared. This is an additional argument for an
> open source test suite.
I
Rainer Jung wrote:
...
Exact details are forbidden, but I'm sure there'll be some information
as soon as someone had time to dig into it.
this was exactly what I feared. This is an additional argument for an
open source test suite.
Cheers,
Marc.
--
Blog: http://mguillem.wordpress.com
On 01.07.2010 17:20, Marc Guillemot wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
...
I run a daily test and just looked to what breaks it and complain.
Now I am looking to Peter's application to find what is broken.
so you're the continuous integration server ;-)
Can you publish break information or is
jean-frederic clere wrote:
...
I run a daily test and just looked to what breaks it and complain.
Now I am looking to Peter's application to find what is broken.
so you're the continuous integration server ;-)
Can you publish break information or is it forbidden by the TCK
license/agreement?
On 07/01/2010 09:28 AM, Marc Guillemot wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> nice to see some activity on this thread.
>
>> If you were following the dev list you would have seen that
>> Jean-Frederic has already vetoed the change Peter made on the basis
>> that it breaks the TCK. That suggests that Peter's anal
On 01/07/2010 09:28, Marc Guillemot wrote:
For me there is a point that is particularly interesting in Peter's email:
> It seams that we better start a open test suite implementation at the
> new Servlet 3.0 API.
Tomcat's test suite is quite minimal even if I recognize that promising
progress
Hi Mark,
nice to see some activity on this thread.
If you were following the dev list you would have seen that
Jean-Frederic has already vetoed the change Peter made on the basis that
it breaks the TCK. That suggests that Peter's analysis of the current
situation is not 100% correct.
I do f
On 30/06/2010 21:23, Peter Roßbach wrote:
Hi Marc,
Am 30.06.2010 um 20:03 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 30/06/2010 17:01, Marc Guillemot wrote:
Hi,
What you write means that the freshly release Tomcat 7 doesn't fully
implement Servlet API 3.0, isn't it?
Interesting to see that nobody reacts :-(
Hi Marc,
Am 30.06.2010 um 20:03 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 30/06/2010 17:01, Marc Guillemot wrote:
Hi,
What you write means that the freshly release Tomcat 7 doesn't fully
implement Servlet API 3.0, isn't it?
Interesting to see that nobody reacts :-(
If you were following the dev list you wo
On 30/06/2010 17:01, Marc Guillemot wrote:
Hi,
What you write means that the freshly release Tomcat 7 doesn't fully
implement Servlet API 3.0, isn't it?
Interesting to see that nobody reacts :-(
If you were following the dev list you would have seen that
Jean-Frederic has already vetoed the
2010/6/30 Marc Guillemot :
> Hi,
>
> What you write means that the freshly release Tomcat 7 doesn't fully
> implement Servlet API 3.0, isn't it?
>
1. It was released as Beta
2. It passes TCK
Best regards,
Konstantin Kolinko
-
To
Hi,
What you write means that the freshly release Tomcat 7 doesn't fully
implement Servlet API 3.0, isn't it?
Interesting to see that nobody reacts :-(
Cheers,
Marc.
Peter Roßbach wrote:
Hi!
I detected some Todo's at AsyncContext
- AsyncContext.createListener
We don't make a resourc
Hi!
I detected some Todo's at AsyncContext
- AsyncContext.createListener
We don't make a resource injection or make it configurable!
Servlet 3.0 API comment:
"This method supports resource injection if the given clazz
represents a Managed Bean. See the Java EE platform and JSR 2
20 matches
Mail list logo
