> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 2:50 AM
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: RE: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat build.xml
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Larry Isaacs wrote:
>
> > It's not so much having one "util" jar, but understanding
> the differences
> > between jakarta-tomcat-connectors' tomcat-util.jar and
> connectors_util.jar.
> > If they are the same, then I would prefer to use a single name.
>
> They are certainly not the same ( or they weren't in 3.3.0/3.3.1 ).
>
> "Tomcat utils" are a collection of (more or less independent)
> tools. In
> tomcat3.3 we put some of them in the common loader ( the minimal set
> required to get things running ), and the rest in the
> container loader.
>
> The 'minimal' set consist of core_util.jar and connectors_util.jar.
>
> tomcat_util.jar ( in container ) has all of the tools.
The instructions for installing Coyote on Tomcat 3.3.x say to
replace connectors_util.jar with j-t-c's tomcat-utils.jar. Since
I plan to include Coyote in Tomcat 3.3.2 distribution, then
the "util" jar we ship in common loader must remain compatible with
the tomcat-utils.jar that j-t-c builds. So why not just use the
"util" jar that j-t-c builds? I would be +1 for renaming the
"util" jar that j-t-c builds to connectors_util.jar to avoid
name confusion with the tomcat_util.jar.
>
> I think it would be a mistake to name the jar in common with the same
> name, since they have different content. If we put all the
> utils in common
> ( which wouldn't be bad - the reasons for keeping the
> 'minimal set' only
> are not very strong ) - then we can name it tomcat_util.jar,
> and remove
> the one in container.
>
> If we do that, we need to fix few bugs - XmlMapper will not
> work because
> crimson is in container/, and we don't set the thread class loader to
> container/ when starting up.
I don't have any special urge to have a single "util" jar.
I find it preferable to not have a XML parser in the common loader.
IMHO, auto-adding the XML parser to the web application loader is a
good solution for providing a default XML parser. If this means we
keep separate common and container "util" jars, I'm in favor of that.
Cheers,
Larry
>
> The main reason for doing the minimal set was a bit of
> security paranoia,
> the utils are used by the core and we must be sure they don't expose
> anything ( static fields/methods, priviledged actions, etc ).
> For example
> the compat util used to have a bug allowing untrusted code to
> run trusted
> apps ( it had a doPriviledged without checking the source ).
> I'm 99% sure
> we're ok.
>
> Other reasons - like allowing apps to load different versions
> of utils -
> are not that important. Somehow important is to make sure all utils
> are webapp-friendly ( ie. use thread class loader - like
> commons-logging for example )
>
> Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
