So may be there is another way of doing what I want. My original plan was to
override the createRequest method. The reason is, I want my own
implementation of the isSecure() method.
So my version of the createRequest method would be like,
public Request createRequest() {
Request reque
"Jacob Marcus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> Using the protocol="my.Class" does help me give my own implementation of
> the
> ProtocolHandler for the Connector.
> The className attribute would have helped me specify my own implementatio
Thanks for the replies.
Using the protocol="my.Class" does help me give my own implementation of the
ProtocolHandler for the Connector.
The className attribute would have helped me specify my own implementation
of the Connector itself.
Removal of the className attribute means that I can no longe
HI Mladen,
good way! But sometimes the changes are inside the Adapter Class and
then you must change the connector class.
+1 to have the attribute className back
Peter
Am 17.10.2006 um 09:36 schrieb Mladen Turk:
Jacob Marcus wrote:
Hi,
The examples no longer show the className attribu
Jacob Marcus wrote:
Hi,
The examples no longer show the className attribute for the Connector
element in the server.xml. Is this not supported any more?
In the past, I have done used my own connector as shown in the example
below.
I could not find the relevant documentation on this possible
Hi,
The examples no longer show the className attribute for the Connector
element in the server.xml. Is this not supported any more?
In the past, I have done used my own connector as shown in the example
below.
I could not find the relevant documentation on this possible change. I will
apprec
