You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by co...@locus.apache.org on 2000/03/29 21:22:39 UTC

cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat/src/share/org/apache/tomcat/core RequestDispatcherImpl.java

costin      00/03/29 11:22:38

  Modified:    src/share/org/apache/tomcat/core RequestDispatcherImpl.java
  Log:
  Fix for #106, thanks to cevans@bitmo.com for finding the bug and the fix.
  
  Submitted by: cevans@bitmo.com
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.20      +8 -2      jakarta-tomcat/src/share/org/apache/tomcat/core/RequestDispatcherImpl.java
  
  Index: RequestDispatcherImpl.java
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-tomcat/src/share/org/apache/tomcat/core/RequestDispatcherImpl.java,v
  retrieving revision 1.19
  retrieving revision 1.20
  diff -u -r1.19 -r1.20
  --- RequestDispatcherImpl.java	2000/03/18 03:04:52	1.19
  +++ RequestDispatcherImpl.java	2000/03/29 19:22:38	1.20
  @@ -130,7 +130,10 @@
   	    throw new IllegalStateException(sm.getString("rdi.forward.ise"));
   
   	// the strange case in a separate method.
  -	if( name!=null) forwardNamed( request, response );
  +	if( name!=null) {
  +	    forwardNamed( request, response );
  +	    return;
  +	}
   	
   	// from strange spec reasons, forward and include are very different in
   	// the way they process the request - if you don't understand the code
  @@ -168,7 +171,10 @@
   	Response realResponse = ((HttpServletResponseFacade)response).getRealResponse();
   
   	// the strange case in a separate method
  -	if( name!=null) includeNamed( request, response );
  +	if( name!=null) {
  +	    includeNamed( request, response );
  +	    return;
  +	}
   	
   	// Implement the spec that "no changes in response, only write"
   	// can also be done by setting the response to 0.9 mode ( as Apache does!)
  
  
  

Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat/src/share/org/apache/tomcat/core RequestDispatcherImpl.java

Posted by Jason Hunter <jh...@acm.org>.
>   Fix for #106, thanks to cevans@bitmo.com for finding the bug 
> and the fix.

It's good that we're reporting what bug each check-in is fixing, but is
there a way we could include the summary in addition to the number?  Cut
and paste would work short term.  Long term it would be good to have
automated inclusion -- have a "Bug number: " field that got expanded to
include the summary during the email out.

-jh-