On 25.02.2011 13:01, Mark Thomas wrote:
So, the questions we need to decide:
1. Is the fix for bug 50748 correct? I think it is.
+0
2. Should Tomcat try and handle this situation (e.g. if any bytes have
been written by a filter, commit the response). This could be tricky to
get right when fo
On 25/02/2011 19:38, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Where does this fail the TCK? Do we have a broken Filter, or does the
> TCK test an unusual/stupid scenario?
I am afraid I can't be more specific about this, the TCK is protected by
an NDA. For that reason, I deliberately simplified my example to a
Mark,
On 2/25/2011 7:01 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> So, the questions we need to decide:
>
> 1. Is the fix for bug 50748 correct? I think it is.
+0
> 2. Should Tomcat try and handle this situation (e.g. if any bytes have
> been written by a filter, commit the response). This could be tricky to
> g
2011/2/25 Mark Thomas :
> The changes [1] for bug 50748 [2] (be aware the bug number changed) have
> triggered some Servlet 3.0 TCK failures. I don't want to get into the
> details of those tests, but I do want to discuss the root cause.
>
> Consider the following scenario:
> Servlet knows it will
The changes [1] for bug 50748 [2] (be aware the bug number changed) have
triggered some Servlet 3.0 TCK failures. I don't want to get into the
details of those tests, but I do want to discuss the root cause.
Consider the following scenario:
Servlet knows it will return exactly 100 bytes of content
