[undertow-dev] transfer-encoding vs content-length with small response

[Edgar Espina]

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 at redhat.com>
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 at gmail.com>
> > To: undertow-dev at 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 at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>



-- 
edgar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/undertow-dev/attachments/20150218/f4adaea1/attachment.html