Re: Tomcat does not accept connections from Safari on iPad vs an SSL connector with JSSE ciphers

2013-03-03 Thread Tim Whittington
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Giuseppe Sacco wrote: [...] > I listed all providers here: > http://centrum.lixper.it/~giuseppe/ipad-tomcat-list-ciphers-no-bouncycastle.html > as you may see, a few of them are TLS_RSA and TLS_DHE: > * TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA > * TLS_RSA_WITH_AE

Re: mod_jk how to add JK_WORKER_NAME to http-header

2013-03-03 Thread Rainer Jung
On 03.03.2013 15:44, Christopher Schultz wrote: > André, > > On 2/27/13 3:59 AM, André Warnier wrote: >> If I understand the original post correctly, the whole point would >> be to know, at the httpd level, which "worker" (Tomcat) actually >> processed this request, right ? If so, why not have the

Re: Is mod_jk's status-worker XML output as intended?

2013-03-03 Thread Rainer Jung
On 02.03.2013 15:52, Christopher Schultz wrote: > All, > > Motivated by seeing Rainer's presentation at ApacheCon 2013, > "Monitoring Apache Tomcat and the Apache Web" [1], I started looking > at mod_jk's status worker - particularly the XML output as I believe > it will be the easiest format to p

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread James Green
On 3 March 2013 19:44, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/03/2013 19:25, James Green wrote: > > I am clearly inferring too much. An explicit statement would certainly > help > > reduce confusion, and perhaps cause the Netbeans people to avoid putting > > the path attribute into the context element - pres

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/03/2013 19:25, James Green wrote: > On 3 March 2013 17:58, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 03/03/2013 16:22, James Green wrote: >>> On 3 March 2013 15:51, Mark Thomas wrote: >> >> >> The base file name controls the context path. If you want to change the context path, the simplest so

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread James Green
On 3 March 2013 17:58, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/03/2013 16:22, James Green wrote: > > On 3 March 2013 15:51, Mark Thomas wrote: > > > > >> The base file name controls the context path. If you want to change the > >> context path, the simplest solution is to change the base file name. > > > >

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/03/2013 16:22, James Green wrote: > On 3 March 2013 15:51, Mark Thomas wrote: >> The base file name controls the context path. If you want to change the >> context path, the simplest solution is to change the base file name. > > Fine. But this is not as described on this page: > http://t

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread Mark Eggers
On 3/3/2013 8:22 AM, James Green wrote: On 3 March 2013 15:51, Mark Thomas wrote: On 03/03/2013 15:29, James Green wrote: On 3 March 2013 14:32, Mark Thomas wrote: On 03/03/2013 14:24, James Green wrote: On 3 March 2013 11:34, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: 2013/3/3 James Green : So no

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread James Green
On 3 March 2013 15:51, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/03/2013 15:29, James Green wrote: > > On 3 March 2013 14:32, Mark Thomas wrote: > > > >> On 03/03/2013 14:24, James Green wrote: > >>> On 3 March 2013 11:34, Konstantin Kolinko > >> wrote: > >>> > 2013/3/3 James Green : > >> > >>> So now I

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/03/2013 15:29, James Green wrote: > On 3 March 2013 14:32, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 03/03/2013 14:24, James Green wrote: >>> On 3 March 2013 11:34, Konstantin Kolinko >> wrote: >>> 2013/3/3 James Green : >> >>> So now I have a war deployed. Easy enough. Now to set the URL path. >> T

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread James Green
On 3 March 2013 14:32, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/03/2013 14:24, James Green wrote: > > On 3 March 2013 11:34, Konstantin Kolinko > wrote: > > > >> 2013/3/3 James Green : > > > So now I have a war deployed. Easy enough. Now to set the URL path. > There a > > lot of talk about Context Descriptors

Re: mod_jk how to add JK_WORKER_NAME to http-header

2013-03-03 Thread Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 André, On 2/27/13 3:59 AM, André Warnier wrote: > If I understand the original post correctly, the whole point would > be to know, at the httpd level, which "worker" (Tomcat) actually > processed this request, right ? If so, why not have the desired

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/03/2013 14:24, James Green wrote: > On 3 March 2013 11:34, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > >> 2013/3/3 James Green : >>> We have a war archive that includes a netbeans-generated context.xml for >> tomcat deployment. >>> >>> If we drop this war into webapps, the context root remains that of the

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread James Green
On 3 March 2013 11:34, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2013/3/3 James Green : > > We have a war archive that includes a netbeans-generated context.xml for > tomcat deployment. > > > > If we drop this war into webapps, the context root remains that of the > war filename. > > As expected, in any of 7.0

Re: Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread Konstantin Kolinko
2013/3/3 James Green : > We have a war archive that includes a netbeans-generated context.xml for > tomcat deployment. > > If we drop this war into webapps, the context root remains that of the war > filename. As expected, in any of 7.0., 6.0 and even 5.5 . Have you read the docs (Context chapte

Context.xml ignored.

2013-03-03 Thread James Green
We have a war archive that includes a netbeans-generated context.xml for tomcat deployment. If we drop this war into webapps, the context root remains that of the war filename. Has there been a regression in recent 7.x releases in this regard? Interestingly, a colleague confirms that this is h