Re: Commit error using 1.8.0 final

[Lieven Govaerts <lg...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:32:13PM +0200, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>> This 204 response is not a problem, there's a special case for
>> Content-Length == 0 && code == 204 in serf (response_buckets.c).
>
> Looking at the serf (1.2.1) code, that logic isn't right, you need to
> follow the precedence in the RFC, particularly that [23]04 is dominant
> over C-L/T-E in determining message length.  (I don't know whether that
> bug could manifest exactly as described here.)
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-4.4

You're right, that code was not completely aligned with RFC2616. Fixed
on serf trunk in r2011 and r2012.

That can't explain this particular issue though, the 204 response had
Content-Length 0, so serf should have done the right thing. It was the
"201 Created" with Content-Length 349 that lacked the message body.

Mark: is this still an open issue?

> Regards, Joe

thanks,

Lieven

Re: Commit error using 1.8.0 final

[Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Lieven Govaerts <lg...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:32:13PM +0200, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>>> This 204 response is not a problem, there's a special case for
>>> Content-Length == 0 && code == 204 in serf (response_buckets.c).
>>
>> Looking at the serf (1.2.1) code, that logic isn't right, you need to
>> follow the precedence in the RFC, particularly that [23]04 is dominant
>> over C-L/T-E in determining message length.  (I don't know whether that
>> bug could manifest exactly as described here.)
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-4.4
>
> You're right, that code was not completely aligned with RFC2616. Fixed
> on serf trunk in r2011 and r2012.
>
> That can't explain this particular issue though, the 204 response had
> Content-Length 0, so serf should have done the right thing. It was the
> "201 Created" with Content-Length 349 that lacked the message body.
>
> Mark: is this still an open issue?

Do you mean if I were to use the latest Serf and SVN trunk?

Once I came up with the reproduction recipe that I gave you and Mike,
I have not done anything.  I have been using SVN 1.7 until I hear that
it is fixed.  I will certainly try again when 1.8.1 and Serf releases
are available to try it with.

-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/