From: "Edgar Espina" <espina.edgar(a)gmail.com&gt; To: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Tuesday, 10 February, 2015 10:36:20 PM Subject: [undertow-dev] transfer-encoding vs content-length with small response Hi, I know that Undertow figure it out a content-length or transfer-encoding header when none of them was set. That's good and it works as expected. It seems to be a problem when you explicitly set the "Transfer-Encoding" header bc Undertow, still add the Content-Length (on small responses?) but it doesn't remove the Transfer-Encoding header. On such cases, the response contains both headers, which I think it's wrong, no? -- edgar _______________________________________________ undertow-dev mailing list undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev

From: "Edgar Espina" <espina.edgar(a)gmail.com&gt; To: "Stuart Douglas" <sdouglas(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Thursday, 19 February, 2015 8:56:18 AM Subject: Re: [undertow-dev] transfer-encoding vs content-length with small response Thank you, Stuart. I do have a related question: should a 304 response set a Content-Length: 0? Don't think so, right? Today, Undertow set a content-length of 0 on 304 responses. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > This is indeed a bug, however it should have been fixed as part of > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/UNDERTOW-180. > > Looking at the code it appears that AsyncSenderImpl also has this issue, I > will fix it up (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/UNDERTOW-385). > > Stuart > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Edgar Espina" <espina.edgar(a)gmail.com&gt; > > To: undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > Sent: Tuesday, 10 February, 2015 10:36:20 PM > > Subject: [undertow-dev] transfer-encoding vs content-length with small > response > > > > Hi, > > > > I know that Undertow figure it out a content-length or transfer-encoding > > header when none of them was set. That's good and it works as expected. > > > > It seems to be a problem when you explicitly set the "Transfer-Encoding" > > header bc Undertow, still add the Content-Length (on small responses?) > but > > it doesn't remove the Transfer-Encoding header. > > > > On such cases, the response contains both headers, which I think it's > wrong, > > no? > > > > -- > > edgar > > > > _______________________________________________ > > undertow-dev mailing list > > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev > -- edgar