On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Larry Isaacs wrote:
> Hi Costin,
>
> See below for my proposal for Item #2. I think this is
> the only one remaining that matters for RC1 at this point.
> Let me know if you think this will work.
I think we can postpone this for RC2. You are right -
syncronization in init
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> If you go this way, you would definitely want to make a note someplace
> that apps cannot use a security constraint with a "/*" pattern, because
> there is no "other" directory in which the login and error pages can be
> put.
>
> Because "/*" is
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Larry Isaacs wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > 3. The spec doesn't address whether a the form-login-page
> > and form-error-page
> > > should be excluded from the security-constraint, but it
> > makes sense that
> > > it should. It might be best to postpone this.
> >
> > +1 to postpo
e
the plan this afternoon and anticipate building RC1
tonight.
Cheers,
Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:23 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
Larry,
I tried to fix as much as possible, could you post an update with what
remains open for RC1 ?
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Larry Isaacs wrote:
> 1. HttpSessionFacade.setAttribute() isn't synchronized. If a second request
> called "setAttribute()" after this request's "removeAttribute()" and
>>> >1798 Tomcat 3.2.2b5 with Apache and ajp13 stops responding after
>>>
>>> This one is very difficult to reproduce (I never succeed).
>>> We need more information on configuration. May be related with
>>> CHUNKED. I'd like to see bug reporter to test against latest TC 3.3
>>
>>Did your atte
e a clue as to
>> what was changed, I can try to determine this.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Bill Barker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:15 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&g
t; > From: Bill Barker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:15 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
> >
> >
> > I interpreted #111 to be the "graceful restart" clean-up
> > probl
>> >7. Evaluate whether anything should be done to deal with the use of
>> >non-thread-safe DateFormat and related classes.
>>
>> The "Date" used in Http10 connector response, is allready
>> handled by stuff I commited some time ago which use a speed hack
>> and return allready processed date S
Cookie using DateTool, where the hit would be minimal. Just me $0.02.
+1
Costin
> - Original Message -
> From: "Larry Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:57 PM
> Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3
$0.02.
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: GOMEZ Henri [mail
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:06 PM
Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
> Thanks. Do you know if just 3.3 was affected
> or 3.2.x as well? If you can give me a clue as to
> what was changed, I can try to determi
> Another problem is to have them bundled correctly in the src
> distribution, or we need 2 distributions ( win32 and *nix) or someone
> will complaint , if the dist is done in win32 , *nix people
> will scream
> , if reversed the other :)..
>
In the Tomcat 3.3 releases ".zip" files will contai
> I need CRLF for building on Windows. It appears that some files
> were checked in from *nix containing CR's that were not stripped
> during the commit. When I checkout or update from Windows, CVS
> still adds a CR in front of all LFs. The result is CRCRLF which
> Dev Studio wants to fix. I'd
IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> I interpreted #111 to be the "graceful restart" clean-up
> problem that was
> fixed some months ago.
> - Original Message -
> From: "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> -Original Message-
> From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> >7. Evaluate whether anything should be done to deal with the use of
&g
I interpreted #111 to be the "graceful restart" clean-up problem that was
fixed some months ago.
- Original Message -
From: "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: Remaining To
>7. Evaluate whether anything should be done to deal with the use of
>non-thread-safe DateFormat and related classes.
The "Date" used in Http10 connector response, is allready
handled by stuff I commited some time ago which use a speed hack
and return allready processed date String if it was pr
>Then we need to be sure to encode r->uri in the main branch
>and to change r->unparsed_uri to encode(r->uri) in the 3.2
>branch. I am swamped now and will put it on a long todo
>list.. if anyone beats me to it.
And don't forget to port to j-t-c which is still using
for Apache 1.3/2.0 :::
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Bill Barker wrote:
> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 17:04:42 -0700
> From: Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
&g
Shouldn't 461 be re-classified as a 4.0 issue?
ServletRequest.setCharacterEncoding is a new feature of 2.3.
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 8:31 AM
Subject: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
> Hi All,
>
>
er prior module?
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
> -Mensaje original-
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviado el: jueves 13 de septiembre de 2001 1:16
> Para: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Asunto: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Sep
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ignacio J. Ortega wrote:
> Please give me some info..
>
> It's possible to use no cookies sessions without using mod_rewrite in
> apache?
I don't know what you mean - mod_jk is taking care of decuding the
sessionId, and it support both cookie and URL decoding.
I didn't even
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Asunto: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
>
> > Then we need to be sure to encode r->uri in the main branch
> > and to change r->unparsed_uri to encode(r->uri) in the 3.2
> > branch. I
]
> | Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:10 PM
> | To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> | Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
> |
> |
> |
> | My current 'preference' is to use r->uri, as in the main branch ( and how
> | it used to be ). That keeps rewrite working and is consistent with most
> | apache modules.
>
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:10 PM
| To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
| Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
|
|
|
| My current 'preference' is to use r->uri, as in the main branch ( and how
| it used to be ). That keeps rewrite working and is consistent with most
| apache modules.
ion, or if there was one. Formally establishing
> this "resolution" for Tomcat 3.3 was my reason for
> including item 11.
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keith Wannamaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, Se
g.
Keith
| -Original Message-
| From: Larry Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 3:19 PM
| To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
| Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
|
|
| One of the main aspects of this issue is for me to
| become informed as to the state of
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 03:19:15PM -0400, Larry Isaacs wrote:
> One of the main aspects of this issue is for me to
> become informed as to the state of Tomcat 3.3's mod_jk
> with respect to this. Tomcat 3.3's mod_jk.c has:
>
> s->req_uri = r->uri;
>
> which, by the statement below, appears
essage-
> From: Keith Wannamaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 3:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> mod_jk uses (used?) r->unparsed_uri to preserve encoding.
> Therefore, any mod_rewrite
That's true of mod_jk in j-t-c. At least through B2 the mod_jk that ships
with 3.3 uses r->uri.
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Wannamaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: Remaining Tom
| Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:30 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Re: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
|
|
| Re. 11) I use mod_rewrite + mod_jk regularly without problems. The problem
| is that the "out-of-the-box" model order puts mod_jk ahead of mod_rewrite.
| The trick t
Re. 11) I use mod_rewrite + mod_jk regularly without problems. The problem
is that the "out-of-the-box" model order puts mod_jk ahead of mod_rewrite.
The trick to make them play happily together is to simply re-order them in
httpd.conf. Of course, this has the downside that you can't use the fi
Sorry for the typo. Yes, it should be 1482.
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for the help.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> As I expected (having spent enough time on encoded URLs), I
> can't reproduce
> 1483 against B2. It always finds the correct session both in
> stand-alone
> and Ajp13.
Oxley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:01 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> Larry,
>
> Any chance of committing the attached patch before 3.3rc1. It makes
> jk_nt_service maintai
As I expected (having spent enough time on encoded URLs), I can't reproduce
1483 against B2. It always finds the correct session both in stand-alone
and Ajp13.
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 8:31 AM
t who knows.
I think that might be hoping too much, which is why I agree with your
assessment.
> Larry
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:54 AM
>>To: '[EMAIL P
David Oxley wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> Any chance of committing the attached patch before 3.3rc1. It makes
> jk_nt_service maintain a list of currently installed services in the
> registry. This is so the Service Manager I have written can work. I will be
> submitting the Service Manager in a few hou
Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:54 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Remaining Tomcat 3.3 Issues
>
>
> > 4. Address user authentication via Ajp12 and Ajp13. Ajp12
> > has a test for
> > isTomcatAut
Larry,
Any chance of committing the attached patch before 3.3rc1. It makes
jk_nt_service maintain a list of currently installed services in the
registry. This is so the Service Manager I have written can work. I will be
submitting the Service Manager in a few hours for committing in
jakarta-tomca
> 4. Address user authentication via Ajp12 and Ajp13. Ajp12
> has a test for
> isTomcatAuthentication() to see if req.setRemoteUser() should
> be called.
> I think Ajp13 doesn't have this yet and probably should. Also, if the
> user is anonymous, i.e. user = "", should we call req.setRemoteUse
42 matches
Mail list logo
