On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:04:21PM +0100, Guy Geens wrote:
> > "Arnaud" == Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Arnaud> Thank you, I'll try ipchains, but I didn't know apache was set
> Arnaud> root (thought www-data).
>
> Apache starts as root, in order to bind to port 80. It also o
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:04:21PM +0100, Guy Geens wrote:
> > "Arnaud" == Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Arnaud> Thank you, I'll try ipchains, but I didn't know apache was set
> Arnaud> root (thought www-data).
>
> Apache starts as root, in order to bind to port 80. It also
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:21:52AM +0100, Soeren Kalesse wrote:
>
>
I think that only works with Tomcat 3.3. The docs for 3.2 are wrong.
Tomcat 3.2 will just ignore that line and generate it's usual
mod_jk.conf-audo with '/libexec'. Either upgrade to 3.3 or
hand-maintain your own mod_jk.conf fi
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:21:52AM +0100, Soeren Kalesse wrote:
>
>
I think that only works with Tomcat 3.3. The docs for 3.2 are wrong.
Tomcat 3.2 will just ignore that line and generate it's usual
mod_jk.conf-audo with '/libexec'. Either upgrade to 3.3 or
hand-maintain your own mod_jk.conf f
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:22:50PM +0100, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On 0, Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about using the jar manifest to store the jar metadata, as Sun
> > intended? Make the jars their own database. A platform-independent
> > database
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:22:50PM +0100, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On 0, Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about using the jar manifest to store the jar metadata, as Sun
> > intended? Make the jars their own database. A platform-independent
> > database
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 09:16:37PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:51:40AM -0800, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
[..]
>
> You say that the war-files allow the classloading. That is not entirely
> true. Take tomcat for example.
>
> * You place a war-file in the specified directory.
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 02:05:17PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2001, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
>
> > And what if foo requires libbar-1.1.3 which is incompatible with the
> > fictional
> > libbar-1.1.0 that jboss requires?
> >
> > How do you install both on the same system... Do you compute
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 09:16:37PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:51:40AM -0800, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
[..]
>
> You say that the war-files allow the classloading. That is not entirely
> true. Take tomcat for example.
>
> * You place a war-file in the specified directory
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 02:05:17PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2001, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
>
> > And what if foo requires libbar-1.1.3 which is incompatible with the fictional
> > libbar-1.1.0 that jboss requires?
> >
> > How do you install both on the same system... Do you compute the
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Max Kellermann wrote:
[..]
>
> At first, we need a library database (applications will be put there,
> too). Maybe just a path containing a description file for every
> library, whatever you may call database. Every Java library and every
> Java applicatio
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Max Kellermann wrote:
[..]
>
> At first, we need a library database (applications will be put there,
> too). Maybe just a path containing a description file for every
> library, whatever you may call database. Every Java library and every
> Java applicati
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 10:30:36PM -0800, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have noticed that almost ALL packages include external .jars in their
> > internal lib directories. This *MUST* stop. Yesterday.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 10:30:36PM -0800, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have noticed that almost ALL packages include external .jars in their
> > internal lib directories. This *MUST* stop. Yesterday.
You'd be better off asking this on the Tomcat list,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (after subscribing).
It looks pretty easy if you use Tomcat in conjunction with Apache. Read the
comment above the mod_webapp connector section in server.xml. You need to add
this to your httpd.conf:
LoadModule webapp_module
You'd be better off asking this on the Tomcat list,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (after subscribing).
It looks pretty easy if you use Tomcat in conjunction with Apache. Read the
comment above the mod_webapp connector section in server.xml. You need to add
this to your httpd.conf:
LoadModule webapp_module
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 08:46:04AM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
> Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think that's best. lib/ext is not overridable by *anything*, not even
> > /usr/bin/java. Say I just installed the Tomcat 3.2 .deb, and it put
> > servlet.j
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 08:46:04AM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
> Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think that's best. lib/ext is not overridable by *anything*, not even
> > /usr/bin/java. Say I just installed the Tomcat 3.2 .deb, and it put
> > servlet.j
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:20:28PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:44:30AM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
> > > Probably not. So the lib/ext dir should be empty, right?
> >
> > Disagree. There is a world of difference between jars you install
> > and jars you serendipitousl
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:20:28PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:44:30AM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
> > > Probably not. So the lib/ext dir should be empty, right?
> >
> > Disagree. There is a world of difference between jars you install
> > and jars you serendipitous
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:04:46AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:03:50AM +1000, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > > There have been quite lot of discussion about the classpaths...
> >
> > :)
> >
> > The only good classpath is a dea.. clean
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:21:15AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:59:09AM +1000, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:15:04PM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
[..]
> > Symlinking jars can be dangerous, because jars can contain a Class-path:
&g
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:04:46AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:03:50AM +1000, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > > There have been quite lot of discussion about the classpaths...
> >
> > :)
> >
> > The only good classpath is a dea.. clean
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:21:15AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:59:09AM +1000, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:15:04PM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
[..]
> > Symlinking jars can be dangerous, because jars can contain a Class-path:
&g
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 06:10:43PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > My turn to say "tread carefully".
> >
> > Symlinking jars can be dangerous, because jars can contain a Class-path:
> > line in their manifests. These Class-path: lines contain relative
> > references to other jars.
>
> I'm not re
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:45:14PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > I have half a gig of open source Java on my hdd, which amounts to a lot
> > of projects. With this scheme, I'd spend half my life twiddling the
> > JAVA_PROJ_LIB variable to point to whichever project I'm currently
> > interested
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:35:20AM +0200, Anders Jackson wrote:
> Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > As long as it's not purely additive. I want to be able to remove stuff
> > from the classpath, not just add my stuff. There are various
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:40:01PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > > I would argue all classpath manipulation should be done in JVM/compiler
> > > startup scripts and Java application startup scripts.
> >
> > I think you're right.
>
> Me, too. And this has been what I've been pushing for from th
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 07:13:49PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Another point about lib/ext. The JVM treats all jars in lib/ext as
> > priveleged, like java.lang.*.
>
> It goes beyond this; policy should not say *anything* about lib/ext at all
> because our system has to support all available J
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:44:00PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'll try to summarize what have come up so far during the
> discussion.
[snip good stuff]
> To discuss:
> ---
>
> * Should we allow library packages to provide different versions?
> Like libxalan2 that provides bot
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 06:10:43PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > My turn to say "tread carefully".
> >
> > Symlinking jars can be dangerous, because jars can contain a Class-path:
> > line in their manifests. These Class-path: lines contain relative
> > references to other jars.
>
> I'm not r
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:45:14PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > I have half a gig of open source Java on my hdd, which amounts to a lot
> > of projects. With this scheme, I'd spend half my life twiddling the
> > JAVA_PROJ_LIB variable to point to whichever project I'm currently
> > interested
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:15:04PM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
> Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > /usr/share/java/foo-version.jar
> > /usr/share/java/foo.jar -> foo-version.jar
>
> Tread carefully. This could have unpredictable results.
>
> The extension directory $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/e
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:40:01PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > > I would argue all classpath manipulation should be done in JVM/compiler
> > > startup scripts and Java application startup scripts.
> >
> > I think you're right.
>
> Me, too. And this has been what I've been pushing for from t
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:35:20AM +0200, Anders Jackson wrote:
> Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > As long as it's not purely additive. I want to be able to remove stuff
> > from the classpath, not just add my stuff. There are various
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 07:13:49PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Another point about lib/ext. The JVM treats all jars in lib/ext as
> > priveleged, like java.lang.*.
>
> It goes beyond this; policy should not say *anything* about lib/ext at all
> because our system has to support all available
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:44:00PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'll try to summarize what have come up so far during the
> discussion.
[snip good stuff]
> To discuss:
> ---
>
> * Should we allow library packages to provide different versions?
> Like libxalan2 that provides bo
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:15:04PM -0700, Bill Wohler wrote:
> Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > /usr/share/java/foo-version.jar
> > /usr/share/java/foo.jar -> foo-version.jar
>
> Tread carefully. This could have unpredictable results.
>
> The extension directory $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 08:54:19PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 08:55:04PM +1000, jeff wrote:
> > But I'll spare you that ranting; let's just say I think it's a
> > horrifically bad idea to have a free-for-all in one's classpath.
>
> I tend to agree, though I should point
Joe,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 07:13:46PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> > My solution to the above problem is at:
> >
> > http://newgate.socialchange.net.au/~jeff/jpe/
[snip]
> The lynchpin to what I'm proposing is that narrower-s
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> > Why not just put the jars in /usr/share/java, keep the system classpath
> > completely clean, and let the startup scripts for individual apps choose
> which
> > to include?
>
> Well, keep in mind that the original e-mail that starte
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 08:54:19PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 08:55:04PM +1000, jeff wrote:
> > But I'll spare you that ranting; let's just say I think it's a
> > horrifically bad idea to have a free-for-all in one's classpath.
>
> I tend to agree, though I should poin
Joe,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 07:13:46PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> > My solution to the above problem is at:
> >
> > http://newgate.socialchange.net.au/~jeff/jpe/
[snip]
> The lynchpin to what I'm proposing is that narrower-
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> > Why not just put the jars in /usr/share/java, keep the system classpath
> > completely clean, and let the startup scripts for individual apps choose
> which
> > to include?
>
> Well, keep in mind that the original e-mail that start
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 08:44:11AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > My mistake; only java.* works. If you want other jars to be considered
> > "standard", put them in $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/ext/. This is a
> > platform-independent equivalent of what you're proposing.
>
> But not JVM-independent. Bear
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 08:44:11AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > My mistake; only java.* works. If you want other jars to be considered
> > "standard", put them in $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/ext/. This is a
> > platform-independent equivalent of what you're proposing.
>
> But not JVM-independent. Bear
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 04:21:09PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> >I can write a Hello World program just fine with a completely blank
> >classpath [1]. In fact, I can write any program that uses java.* and
> >javax.* with nothing in the classpath
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 04:21:09PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
>
> >I can write a Hello World program just fine with a completely blank
> >classpath [1]. In fact, I can write any program that uses java.* and
> >javax.* with nothing in the classpath
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:16:58PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
> >Why not just put the jars in /usr/share/java, keep the system classpath
> >completely clean, and let the startup scripts for individual apps choose
> >which
> >to include?
> >
> Because you're causing a big hassle for
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:16:58PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
> >Why not just put the jars in /usr/share/java, keep the system classpath
> >completely clean, and let the startup scripts for individual apps choose
> >which
> >to include?
> >
> Because you're causing a big hassle fo
50 matches
Mail list logo
