4 Replies Latest reply on Aug 16, 2010 12:35 AM by areohbee

    LR3.2RC any change in LrHttp.post?

    L. Hagen

      I'm using LrHttp.post to communicate with my web server via XML. In LR3 this worked fine. Now I tried out the LR3.2RC and now I get always this message back:

       

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
      <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
      <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
      <head>
      <title>Request entity too large!</title>
      <link rev="made" href="mailto:admin@localhost" />
      <style type="text/css"><!--/*--><![CDATA[/*><!--*/
          body { color: #000000; background-color: #FFFFFF; }
          a:link { color: #0000CC; }
          p, address {margin-left: 3em;}
          span {font-size: smaller;}
      /*]]>*/--></style>
      </head>

      <body>
      <h1>Request entity too large!</h1>
      <p>


          The POST
          method does not allow the data transmitted, or the data volume
          exceeds the capacity limit.

      </p>
      <p>
      If you think this is a server error, please contact
      the <a href="mailto:admin@localhost">webmaster</a>.

      </p>

      <h2>Error 413</h2>
      <address>
        <a href="/">site5.local</a><br />
       
        <span>08/16/10 08:22:23<br />
        Apache/2.2.11 (Win32) DAV/2 mod_ssl/2.2.11 OpenSSL/0.9.8i mod_autoindex_color PHP/5.2.8</span>
      </address>
      </body>
      </html>

      XML-RPC server accepts POST requests only.

       

      So I would assume that something has changed within POST. Is it a bug or a feature?

       

      Thanks,

      Lars

        • 1. Re: LR3.2RC any change in LrHttp.post?
          L. Hagen Level 1

          I found the solution by myself:

           

          Before (works fine in LR3 but not in LR3RC):

          local headers = {}
          table.insert( headers, { field = 'User-Agent', value = 'Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Zenphoto Publish Plugin' } )
          table.insert( headers, { field = 'Content-Type', value = 'text/xml; charset=utf-8' } )
          table.insert( headers, { field = 'Content-length', value = tostring( #xmlString ) } )
          table.insert( headers, { field = 'Content-Length', value = tostring( #xmlString ) } )

           

          After (works in LR3RC):

          local headers = {}
          table.insert( headers, { field = 'User-Agent', value = 'Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Zenphoto Publish Plugin' } )
          table.insert( headers, { field = 'Content-Type', value = 'text/xml; charset=utf-8' } )
          table.insert( headers, { field = 'Content-length', value = tostring( #xmlString ) } )

          • 2. Re: LR3.2RC any change in LrHttp.post?
            areohbee Level 5

            L. Hagen wrote:

             

            I found the solution by myself:

             

            Its a good thing - I wouldn't have had a clue (thanks for the update).

             

            So, was the problem that Lr3.2RC likes lower case 'l' or did it just not like the duplicate content-length field? Or, do you not know and not care...(?)

             

            Rob

            • 3. Re: LR3.2RC any change in LrHttp.post?
              L. Hagen Level 1

              Hi Rob,

               

              it is/was the duplicate.

               

              BTW / OT: have you already checked whether Adobe has changed something with the "keyword speed" in the RC?

              • 4. Re: LR3.2RC any change in LrHttp.post?
                areohbee Level 5

                Hi Lars,

                 

                Not that I can tell. I'm working on a keyword consolidator right now and it takes several seconds to initialize (small cat) up to a few minutes (large cat) to initialize (argghhhhh...)

                 

                _R