JavaMail 1.2 now supported, new nightly build available (was: Slightly different content type ...)

[Wouter Cloetens <wc...@raleigh.ibm.com>]

Problem fixed. Just committed the code, and Dug's put up a new build.

Root cause: sometimes, JavaMail 1.2 wraps the boundary parameter of the
Content-Type header to the next line (prepended with a tab). I guess
it's related to how long the line becomes, so it depends on the numbers
it generates. Maybe they're hashcodes of objects too, and they tend to
typically be smaller on the IBM JDK's JVM that on the Sun one or
something. I don't care - I coded in generic support that picks up a
situation like that and throws the lot on a single line.

bfn, Wouter

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:14:53 +0100, Singleton, Owen wrote:

>Success!! 
>
>I've replaced the 1.2 mail.jar with the 1.1.3 version and it worked.  It worked fine with a 1.2 version on the server and a 1.1.3 on the client too.  
>
>Funny that you only saw the problem intermittently.  It was a 100% consistant failure on both Linux (JDK 1.1.8 & 1.3.0) & NT (JDK 1.2.2) over here.
[...]
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary=8152936.979754245268.JavaMail.osinglet.luxdev;
type="text/xml";
start="2636682.979754245419.apache-soap.osinglet.luxdev"

>-----Original Message-----
>From: wcloeten@raleigh.ibm.com [mailto:wcloeten@raleigh.ibm.com]
>Sent: mercredi 17 janvier 2001 17:36
>To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Slighlty different content type error with new
>soap-nightly.j ar
>
>
>Ha. JavaMail 1.2 has been released in December, I didn't notice that.
>I'll fix it so we support that version too. In the mean time, you could
>try 1.1.3; it's still on the website.
>
>Bug #4293605 reports that the generated boundary string was invalid, as
>the MIME RFC does not allow the '@' character. That fix is probably the
>cause of this.
>
>I downloaded it and very intermittently, I do see the same problem
>you're reporting. It normally works fine; it doesn't look like any of
>my code gets confused by the differently formatted boundary string. The
>new mail.jar does cause another problem too. I've fixed that already,
>but I'll wait until I get to the bottom of this before I commit the
>fix.

--
http://www.workspot.net/~zombie/soap/
My opinions are irrelevant. They will be assimilated by my employer.