Summary: | HTTP Static Partial Content Bug | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Tomcat Native | Reporter: | V. Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar> |
Component: | Library | Assignee: | Tomcat Developers Mailing List <dev> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | RFC |
Priority: | P2 | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Windows XP |
Description
V. Karthik Kumar
2005-10-17 16:19:41 UTC
Are you using the HTTP APR connector ? (In reply to comment #1) > Are you using the HTTP APR connector ? Yes. (the statically compiled tcnative-1) I can already tell you that telnet as a client on localhost has issues on Windows when doing sendfile (for whatever reasons, sendfile doesn't like it, and returns an error code). I don't think this is a bug in Tomcat. (In reply to comment #3) > I can already tell you that telnet as a client on localhost has issues on > Windows when doing sendfile (for whatever reasons, sendfile doesn't like it, and > returns an error code). I don't think this is a bug in Tomcat. It's not about telnet ... it didn't work on my usual file-downloading client ... and oh, it DID work with telnet and my client with the 26000000- range. It's not a problem with telnet or sendfile as such... I suspect something more. (In reply to comment #4) > It's not about telnet ... it didn't work on my usual file-downloading client ... > and oh, it DID work with telnet and my client with the 26000000- range. It's not > a problem with telnet or sendfile as such... I suspect something more. You can suspect all you want, I'll be looking at facts. So far, it seems to be going to WONTFIX land. (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > It's not about telnet ... it didn't work on my usual file-downloading client ... > > and oh, it DID work with telnet and my client with the 26000000- range. It's not > > a problem with telnet or sendfile as such... I suspect something more. > > You can suspect all you want, I'll be looking at facts. So far, it seems to be > going to WONTFIX land. Fine. Put up with it and stay with Non-HTTP-Compliant Land :P (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > It's not about telnet ... it didn't work on my usual file-downloading client ... > > and oh, it DID work with telnet and my client with the 26000000- range. It's not > > a problem with telnet or sendfile as such... I suspect something more. > > You can suspect all you want, I'll be looking at facts. So far, it seems to be > going to WONTFIX land. Fine. Put up with it and stay in Non-HTTP-Compliant Land :P (In reply to comment #6) > Fine. Put up with it and stay with Non-HTTP-Compliant Land :P You know, I had figured already you were a whiner. (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Fine. Put up with it and stay with Non-HTTP-Compliant Land :P > You know, I had figured already you were a whiner. Guys, can we keep this professional? Karthik: what Remy is saying is that he needs more than just a "suspicion", as in a documented, **self-contained**, test case which demonstrates the problem. The issue is now fixed (incorrect length parameter passed to the sendfile call), as submitted by Mladen Turk. (In reply to comment #10) > The issue is now fixed (incorrect length parameter passed to the sendfile call), > as submitted by Mladen Turk. It's not closed dammit remm.. If the number of bytes asked for is <4KB (at the end of the file), it doesn't work. It's tested. It's with and without the APR binary. It's still a bug Sorry about that. thanx for fixing. :-) Next time remm... please be more considerate while replying. |