tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <wbar...@wilshire.com>
Subject Re: Watchdog problems on 3.3.x
Date Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:26:40 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Remy Maucherat" <remm@apache.org>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: Watchdog problems on 3.3.x


> > The current Coyote connector (almost, but more on that later) passes
> > Watchdog on port 80.  It fails badly on port 8080.  From the discussions
> on
> > list between Remy and Costin, this is because the Watchdog tests
> incorrectly
> > fail to include the port in the Host header for the HTTP/1.1 protocol.
>
> I thought Watchdog used HTTP/1.0 (at least Watchdog 4 does).

Yes, it does use HTTP/1.0.  It also (at least for the 3.x one) sends a Host
header.  It seems that the problem is that we are enforcing the HTTP/1.1 RFC
based only on the presence of a Host header.  We should probably fall back
to using the socket port for HTTP/1.0 clients who send a Host header without
a port.

>
> If it uses HTTP/1.0, then it's a problem with Coyote.
> If it uses HTTP/1.1, then it's a problem with the old Watchdog.
>
> > Given that Watchdog *is* the test that Tomcat has to pass to be the
> > reference implementation, I'd like some word that we can change the 2.2
> > Watchdog to be HTTP/1.1 compliant.
> >
> > The failed test on port 80 (same as the old CoyoteIntercepter) has to do
> > with un-safe escapes in the URL, which by default, DecodeInterceptor
> faults.
>
> Remy
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message