tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Schultz <>
Subject Re: unified doXXX()
Date Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:55:11 GMT
Hash: SHA1


On 3/2/2010 4:05 PM, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>>> Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>> I know this sounds silly, but we're getting down to the
>>> grasping-at-straws level, here, so bear with me: have you checked to see
>>> that your request body is actually in the correct format (that is,
>>> urlencoded, etc.)? I haven't looked at the Tomcat code, but Tomcat might
>>> give up if the request body is not parsable.
>>> Have you tried calling request.getInputStream and dumping the request
>>> body when the parameter is null? That might give you some indication of
>>> what's happening.
>> The client does url encode in addition to translating any chars that
>> are used either by tomcat and/or or app to decode the reaquest (namely
>> = is translated to ^, comma to #, right/left parens to @ and $
>> respectivally) then I use javascripts "escape(string)" method to url
>> encode it.... the app by default uses post but if I cut and paste the
>> resulting payload into a GET and pass it to the app it works fine
>> (i.e. the app uses POST but I do manual testing with GET)

Wait, what? Why all that extra encoding? Well, I guess you know what
you're doing.

> opps forgot to mention the manual test works for both the new and old
> format but the automated method only works for the old format (both
> formats use the one param to rule them all strategy)

Obviously, something is different. Check everything between your manual
and "automated" tests and see what is different. Maybe it's a trailing
newline. Maybe it's a Content-Length header. Whatever it is, apparently,
it's significant.

- -chris
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message