----- Original Message ----- From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 12:04 AM Subject: Re: Bug 13658
> Bill Barker wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Remy Maucherat" > > To: "Tomcat Developers List" > > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:11 AM > > Subject: Re: Bug 13658 > > > > > > > > >Bill Barker wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Before I start performing major surgery on the TC4/5 connector, I > > >>wanted to > > >>check on what is the reason for having the attributes field in > > >>CoyoteRequest > > >>(instead of just delegating to the o.a.c.Request like the 3.3 Adapter > > >>does). > > >> > > >>At the moment, the SSL request attributes are set on the o.a.c.Request > > >>(because that's all that the Action knows about). This is Ok for > > >>getAttribute, since it delegates when not found. But for > > >>getAttributeNames, > > >>it only uses the names known to the attributes field (so no SSL > > >>attributes). > > >> > > >>My strong preference is to delegate always (cleaner, esp. for TC 5 > > >>that will > > >>be able to access Coyote directly). But I can fix this particular bug > > >>either way. > > > > > >I don't remember the reason. I probably chose not to delegate since > > >there might not have been any attributes ariginally in the Coyote > > >Request object. > > >So it wasn't done because it wasn't there; I don't think there ever was > > >a Good Reason (TM) for that. > > > > > >+1 to fix it. > > > > > >What's the surgery you want to do ? > > > > > > Basically, remove the attributes field from CoyoteRequest, and > > delegate all > > attribute related methods. The downside is that the CoyoteRequest uses a > > HashMap, and the o.a.c.Request uses a Hashtable (non-sync/sync). For 3.3, > > I'd really like to keep the Hashtable in the o.a.c.Request (so that Coyote > > can be used with 3.3/J2ME). There is also the issue of the proposal > > to have > > lazy evaluation in TC 5. > > Sorry, I forgot about the hashtable problem. -1 then (or +1 to switch to > more efficient collections). We could have two versions of the > Request/Response classes, or use some preprocessing with Ant. > > My work optimizing Tomcat is completely useless if it's to add many syncs. Right (and if I didn't have to support the 1.1.x community I'd agree). Until Henri/Costin/Larry offer their opinions on supporting Coyote with 3.3 for Java2 only, I'll have to (reluctantly) -1 using a HashMap in o.a.c.Request. I'll patch the CoyoteRequest to copy the SSL attributes to the attributes field. > > Remy > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
