[Mono-bugs] [Bug 71587][Maj] Changed - Cannot access HttpWorkerRequest from HttpModule

bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.ximian.com bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.ximian.com
Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:20:52 -0500 (EST)

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

Changed by gonzalo@ximian.com.


--- shadow/71587	2005-01-21 23:46:11.000000000 -0500
+++ shadow/71587.tmp.13539	2005-01-22 02:20:52.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 Bug#: 71587
 Product: Mono: Class Libraries
 Version: unspecified
 OS: other
 OS Details: Gentoo Linux on Kernel 2.6.9
-Status: REOPENED   
+Status: RESOLVED   
+Resolution: NOTABUG
 Severity: Unknown
 Priority: Major
 Component: Sys.Web
 AssignedTo: gonzalo@ximian.com                            
 ReportedBy: wweems@gmail.com               
 QAContact: mono-bugs@ximian.com
@@ -202,6 +202,36 @@
 ------- Additional Comments From chrish@assistedsolutions.com  2005-01-21 23:46 -------
 As Weston has posted a stack trace that demonstrates that the 
 exception clearly occurs within Mono/XSP, I have reopened this bug.
+------- Additional Comments From gonzalo@ximian.com  2005-01-22 02:20 -------
+I fixed that problem in XSP. That was caused by:
+1. The IHttpHandler called CloseConnection without writing anything
+back to the client.
+2. XSP reused the connection socket
+3. The socket had data not read from the previous request.
+I made a small fix in xsp so that if no content is sent back to the
+client, CloseConnection closes the socket instead of attempting to
+reuse it. The code should already be in anonymous SVN, as I commited
+that fix before closing this bug for the first time.
+On your previous comment, I have to say that multipart-formdata is not
+supported in our HttpRequest (this can be filled as a separate bug
+About GetConfig returning an object that must have the values read
+from the configuration as property, I have to disagree. We have fields
+instead of get/set properties in this case and there's nothing in the
+documentation that says we're wrong (things are better in .NET 2.0).
+About the whole request being read into memory by the MS runtime... I
+doubt it (you can prove me wrong with a test case ;-). Why? Because
+that would beat the whole purpose of limiting the request length.
+Hence, I'm closing the bug.
+Thanks for your time, comments and code.