Hello,
The exception was not swallowed. It was just in a different log file
which I wasn't anticipating.
Thanks,
-Jared
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Jared Walker
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question about how BackupManager enforces or performs session
> replication.
>
> I have added print
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Jared,
On 6/4/17 7:45 PM, Jared Walker wrote:
> I was able to figure out that this issue was caused by a developer
> adding logging code to the serialization that had a NPE.
> Unfortunately the exception was not printed out to catalina.out so
> it
Hello,
I was able to figure out that this issue was caused by a developer
adding logging code to the serialization that had a NPE.
Unfortunately the exception was not printed out to catalina.out so it
was very hard to find, but easy to fix.
Thanks,
-Jared
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Jared,
On 5/29/17 5:03 PM, Jared Walker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question about how BackupManager enforces or performs
> session replication.
>
> I have added print outs to the serializing methods of an object
> I'm binding to the http session
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Jared,
On 5/18/17 1:24 PM, Jared Walker wrote:
> Now, I know this is only a work around as the "spec" being used by
> this client is ancient. We are considering using the legacy parser
> as a stop-gap measure until we can update the external clien
On 18/05/2017 19:12, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: jared.paul.wal...@gmail.com [mailto:jared.paul.wal...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Jared Walker
Subject: Tomcat 8.5.4 and LegacyCookieProcessor
We are migrating to the version of tomcat identified in the subject
Before exposing an almost yea
> From: jared.paul.wal...@gmail.com [mailto:jared.paul.wal...@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Jared Walker
> Subject: Tomcat 8.5.4 and LegacyCookieProcessor
> We are migrating to the version of tomcat identified in the subject
Before exposing an almost year-old version to the nasty real world, you mig
Thanks Mark, The issues was not there when i used 8.5.5.. Thank you for
pointing me in that direction
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 16/09/2016 07:44, Linux Support wrote:
>
>
>
> > I cannot make out where it picks up the alias tomcat
>
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla
On 16/09/2016 07:44, Linux Support wrote:
> I cannot make out where it picks up the alias tomcat
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59910
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For add
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert,
On 9/6/16 11:05 PM, Robert Winch wrote:
> Mark / Rémy,
>
> Thanks again for your responses.
>
> I'd like to point out one more thing. Mark stated:
>
>> To date, the only problem we have seen with RFC6265 that comes to
>> mind is that Tomc
Mark / Rémy,
Thanks again for your responses.
I'd like to point out one more thing. Mark stated:
> To date, the only problem we have seen with RFC6265 that comes to mind
> is that Tomcat rejects domain values with leading '.' when an
> application creates a cookie.
The problem I am experiencing
2016-09-06 23:04 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> I was assuming that Servlet 4.0 would update to RFC6265 so 9.0.x would
> be no change. 8.0.x uses the legacy parser by default so we are only
> talking about 8.5.x. here.
>
> The reason I was fine with adding this to STRICT_SERVLET_COMPLIANCE for
> 8.5.x
On 06/09/2016 21:29, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-09-06 19:11 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> This looks like something that is a good fit for
>> STRICT_SERVLET_COMPLIANCE. My current thinking is if this is set, change
>> the default CookieProcessor to LegacyCookieProcessor.
>>
> I think I'm -1 for u
On 06/09/2016 20:57, Robert Winch wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Thanks again for your detailed response.
>
> In addition to the STRICT_SERVLET_COMPLIANCE flag, would you consider
> supporting the older RFC if a cookie version was explicitly set on the
> Cookie?
If applications want to explicitly send versi
2016-09-06 19:11 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
> This looks like something that is a good fit for
> STRICT_SERVLET_COMPLIANCE. My current thinking is if this is set, change
> the default CookieProcessor to LegacyCookieProcessor.
>
> I think I'm -1 for using the strict compliance flag for that. It's too
Mark,
Thanks again for your detailed response.
In addition to the STRICT_SERVLET_COMPLIANCE flag, would you consider
supporting the older RFC if a cookie version was explicitly set on the
Cookie?
Cheers,
Rob
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 19:02, Robert Winc
On 06/09/2016 19:02, Robert Winch wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Thank you for the detailed response.
>
> I'm looking to assess the full impact of applications that might choose to
> use LegacyCookieProcessor. Can you elaborate on why using
> LegacyCookieProcessor is a bad idea?
It isn't that LegacyCookiePr
Mark,
Thank you for the detailed response.
I'm looking to assess the full impact of applications that might choose to
use LegacyCookieProcessor. Can you elaborate on why using
LegacyCookieProcessor is a bad idea?
Are you aware of other containers that also use RFC6265?
Thanks,
Rob
On Tue, Sep
On 06/09/2016 18:11, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 17:38, Robert Winch wrote:
>> Thank you for your response.
>>
>> I don't see how the Tomcat documentation can be fixed unless the Tomcat's
>> Servlet APIs are going to deviate from the Servlet 3.1 specification. If
>> Tomcat continues to devia
On 06/09/2016 17:38, Robert Winch wrote:
> Thank you for your response.
>
> I don't see how the Tomcat documentation can be fixed unless the Tomcat's
> Servlet APIs are going to deviate from the Servlet 3.1 specification. If
> Tomcat continues to deviate from the specification, I don't see how Tom
2016-09-06 18:38 GMT+02:00 Robert Winch :
> Thank you for your response.
>
You're welcome.
Rémy
Thank you for your response.
I don't see how the Tomcat documentation can be fixed unless the Tomcat's
Servlet APIs are going to deviate from the Servlet 3.1 specification. If
Tomcat continues to deviate from the specification, I don't see how Tomcat
8.5 can claim Servlet 3.1 compliance.
Do you s
2016-09-02 23:19 GMT+02:00 Robert Winch :
> I realize that I can manually configure LegacyCookieProcessor
>
> Yes, you'll have to configure the legacy cookie processor to support the
less formal former cookie RFCs, this is as expected. If you find any
discrepancies about that in the Tomcat documen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Swati,
On 8/11/16 2:16 AM, swati jain wrote:
> Tomcat Version - 8.5.4 ( Embedded) Platform - Linux
>
> When NIO connector is used with Embedded Tomcat, it creates a
> session per request. The session lasts for 30 minutes. Is there a
> way to confi
From: Mark Thomas
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 15:32
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Tomcat 8.5.4 and Log4j2
On 28/07/2016 20:09, Chen Levy wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I’ve been using Tomcat 8.0.X with Log4j2, both for Tomcat logging and for my
> applicative logs, for a long time n
On 28/07/2016 20:09, Chen Levy wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I’ve been using Tomcat 8.0.X with Log4j2, both for Tomcat logging and for my
> applicative logs, for a long time now.
> It was done using the following jars:
> extras/tomcat-juli.jar
> extras/tomcat-juli-adapters.jar jars
>
> I’m in the proce
26 matches
Mail list logo
