On 07/12/2013 14:33, Christopher Schultz wrote: > In this case, it's pretty clear that there is a quite desirable > feature missing from the spec and I think it might be reasonable > to violate it in this instance. I'd prefer to get Mark or > Konstantin to weigh-in on such a step, because it might set a bad > precedent for Tomcat.
The spec doesn't say the container can't put its own objects in to the session user properties collection :) We already have a custom property to enable users to control the blocking read/write timeout (another spec oversight). I'd have no objection to an org.apache.tomcat.websocket.SERVLET_CONTEXT property being added. If the WebSocket spec adds a property it will be in the javax.websocket namespace and we can always support both. They may opt to simply add a property on the session. The patch to do this looks to be pretty minimal. > I'm certainly not going to commit that myself. :) Trunk and 7.0.x are CTR so you would be well within your rights to commit first. It is often useful to discuss more complex / invasive patches before the commit but I don't think there is much more to discuss here. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
