On 23/12/2010 07:49, André Warnier wrote: > Pid * wrote: >> On 22 Dec 2010, at 23:38, André Warnier <a...@ice-sa.com> wrote: >> >>> Pid * wrote: >>>> On 22 Dec 2010, at 23:02, Jeffrey Janner >>>> <jeffrey.jan...@polydyne.com> wrote: >>>>> Definitely the culprit. Now, I just have to convince the Dev team >>>>> that they are, once again, a bunch of idiots. >>>> Fail. >>> Pid, >>> why /do/ the "static objects" links embedded in the login page get >>> back to the browser with a jsessionid appended ? >> >> <c:url is a JSTL tag which encodes a link. > > So in clear everyday English, for the benefit of the oppressed minority > who does not speak JSTL fluently, the fact of encoding this link in the > page as "<c:url something..>" is the reason why Tomcat (roughly > speaking) modifies it to add the ";jessionid" bit, yes ? > And if one were to remove the "<c:url .." tag from those links, it > wouldn't, right ? > > And if so, why did you say "Fail" above ?
I was referring to the "Definitely the culprit." statement. Fail because encoding the links to static resources is unnecessary. > (apart from the name-calling of the Dev team, which may have been a bit > overdone, this being Christmas and all) Wasn't me... but I can understand the frustration. There's a chance that someone find+replaced the code to add URL encoding as a fix, but accidentally included the static resources too, of course. > As long as we're at it, are there any dire consequences in this case for > removing the "<c:url .." bit ? For static resources? No. In this case, only gain. p
0x62590808.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
