it doesn't
work...
-Dave
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:46 PM, David Rees wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got an application where I need to keep track of all the active
> user sessions. Using both the HttpSessionActivationListener +
> HttpSessionListener interfaces seemed like an ea
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Ian Soboroff wrote:
> 46597: Port all cookie handling changes from Tomcat 6.0.x.
>
> looks like the one that got me. Are these changes documented somewhere?
There's the bug itself. There's a patch attached.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
This is the 3rd thread on this subject now.
Previous two:
http://marc.info/?l=tomcat-dev&m=125073164103556&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=tomcat-user&m=125051750826349&w=2
Here you can download the changelog from SVN, not that easy to read, though:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/container/tc5.5.x/
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM, George Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To have a build that breaks an application because the container is
> violating security policy looking for a non-existent file is just not
> acceptable.
>
> In order for me to use this build I would have to install the pat
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about cutting a release candidate on Monday, Aug 18th and if all is
> well, have a release towards end of next week?
I'm not a committer, but +1. I'll help test once the RC is bundled. I
have been having prob
I posted a couple messages to the user/dev lists last week asking the
same question, but still haven't seen any mention of a plan to release
a new 5.5.x or 4.1.x to fix the security issues posted at the
beginning of the month.
Is there a plan to push a new release for either 5.5.x or 4.1.x or
shou
With the 3 known security vulnerabilities in 5.5.26, when will 5.5.27
be scheduled for release?
http://tomcat.apache.org/security-5.html
I am particularly worried about CVE-2008-2370 myself.
I would rather not have to go through and completely test 6.0.18 which
has been released and has the 3 kn
On 4/18/07, nambo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does it contain a security fix?
Which one is a security fix in ChangeLog?
I am not aware of any publicly known security issues with mod_jk
1.2.22 just versions 1.2.19-20 as mentioned here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/security-jk.html
BTW, didn't that
On 3/12/07, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/12/07, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/12/07, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was downloading TC 6.0.10 and noticed that the md5sum files are
> > missing for that release.
>
Hi,
I was downloading TC 6.0.10 and noticed that the md5sum files are
missing for that release.
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-60.cgi
Missing:
http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/v6.0.10/bin/apache-tomcat-6.0.10.tar.gz.md5
-Dave
--
On 12/16/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Important: maps are associated to virtual hosts in apache. The status
worker can only see those maps, that belong to the same virtual host, it
has been called in. So if you add all your maps to a vhost for
production use, and add a status worker
On 12/6/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- reworked status worker (see new docs page)
On my status worker page, I get the message:
Warning: No URI Mappings defined for !
Otherwise, everything seems to work OK so far in my limited testing.
-Dave
---
On 12/11/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyhow, this should at least be clearly documented if not enforced.
There's no changelog for native that I could find, which should be
fixed.
+1 for that, I was looking for a tc-native changelog a while back to
figure out if I need to be
On 9/28/06, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Apache Tomcat team is pleased to announce the immediate availability
of version 5.5.20 of the Apache Tomcat server.
The links to the md5sum files are broken on the download page, they
end with .MD5 and should end with .md5.
-Da
On 9/14/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Rees wrote:
OK. I would propose that adding a new feature that allows you to map
all requests matching .*;jsessionid=.* to mod_jk would be a worthy
feature. I am willing to work on a patch if no mod_jk developers are
interested. Sh
On 9/14/06, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what do you do when you have multiple virtualhosts mapped to
> different workers?
Please don't split hair :)
In that case use the JkMount/JkUnMount combinations
to separate the resources served by Httpd.
Less than ideal, but this whole i
On 9/13/06, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Rees wrote:
> I'm using this config in Apache:
>
> JkMount /*.jsp tomcatlb
>
> JkMount tomcatlb
>
Have you tried?
SetHandler jakarta-servlet
The worker used will be the first one in
worker.list if y
Ok, I'm pretty sure this is a real bug (though not a new one, mod_jk
back to 1.2.15 behaves the same).
I'm using this config in Apache:
JkMount /*.jsp tomcatlb
JkMount tomcatlb
The goal of this example to have Tomcat serve all .jsp files and URL
which looks like it has been rewritten with th
On 9/13/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anything in the mod_jk log?
[error] ajp_service::jk_ajp_common.c (1879): (pepper7) Connecting to
tomcat failed. Tomcat is probably not started or is listening on the
wrong port
Tomcat is running, the mod_jk log level was set to error
You mea
Anyone else seeing a problem where sometimes the first hit returns a
503 and shows the worker recovering? Waiting for the recovery period
to go and the worker is ok. This is a simple load balanced worker with
only one child worker.
Unfortunately I can't reliably reproduce this, it seems to happen
On 7/26/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At least concerning thi spoint we devs had no confusion. The docs under
dist have been updated when 1.2.18 has been put on dev:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/docs/tomcat-connectors-1.2.18/config/workers.html
Yes, it appears that I am the one co
On 7/25/06, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/24/06, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Rees wrote:
> > > Thanks that should work around my issue quite nicely. I'll check out
>
On 7/24/06, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/19/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Rees wrote:
> > Thanks that should work around my issue quite nicely. I'll check out
> > SVN and give a whirl (unless a new tag is to be rolled again s
On 7/19/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Rees wrote:
> Thanks that should work around my issue quite nicely. I'll check out
> SVN and give a whirl (unless a new tag is to be rolled again shortly?)
Try 1.2.18.
1.2.18 works much bette
On 7/19/06, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Committed a fix that allows to have a
worker.name.recover_time lower then 60 seconds.
Previously the minimum value was 60 seconds, and
now is 1 second.
The default is still the same (60 seconds)
While the change you made allows you to configure
On 7/19/06, Jean-frederic Clere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But when all your workers are down, what is the harm in trying to
> recover more quicky?
Because the TC on the other side is probably busy and you may cause a
huge increase of threads (X2)... And that will not help for the recovery.
On 7/19/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, I think it's not:
1) This is not a regression, it was always implemented like that.
Really? I know it's been like this for a few releases now, but I
remember some very old versions of mod_jk (from a couple years ago?)
used to recover nearl
On 7/19/06, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Committed a fix that allows to have a
worker.name.recover_time lower then 60 seconds.
Previously the minimum value was 60 seconds, and
now is 1 second.
The default is still the same (60 seconds)
Thanks that should work around my issue quite ni
On 7/18/06, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is the 60 seconds hard-coded?
I'd hope not...
Once you have some interesting web apps in Tomcat it often takes a bit
longer than 10 seconds -- and on my laptop just took a full 60 seconds,
but that is rather unusual (a restart thereafter only to
I've been testing the 1.2.17 (soon to be 1.2.18) release and have
noticed a problem in worker recovery.
If I restart a Tomcat instance and mod_jk notices that it went down,
mod_jk waits 60 seconds recovery time before it tries again (see
jk_lb_worker.h WAIT_BEFORE_RECOVER and struct jk_shm_worker
On 6/27/06, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right, release numbers are cheap.
We are number 16 after so many years after all :)
Anyhow, just release 1.2.16, and if its broken
make 1.2.17.
I'll be sure to give it a test on Linux and IRIX once the tarball is rolled. :-)
-Dave
--
On 6/27/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- take the role as RM for mod_jk 1.2.16
- tag mod_jk soon as 1.2.16-rc1
- roll a tarball and inform the dev- and user-list about availability of
a release candidate and invite to test it.
- in case of negative testing: fix, retag as rc2, reroll e
On 6/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My problem is not a user problem, for the moment I don't want to use mod_jk, I
only want to modify it and thus understand the mod_jk code before. So I think
my question might be on the right list, but if I am again wrong I excuse myself
and
On 6/14/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm working on a J2EE server (JOnAS) using Tomcat as web
container. I'm trying to add some mechanisms to allow the updating of
an application. The aim is to preserve HA (Hight AVaibility) by not
stopping completely the application.
You'll
On 6/5/06, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Think I'm done with all the patches I had on my schedule.
Feel free to check the HEAD.
I built the latest from SVN today and ran a few of my applications
through it and didn't notice any anomalies. Looks good so far, thanks!
-Dave
There is a spelling error below, incative should be inactive.
-Dave
On 6/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk/xdocs/config/workers.xml (original)
+++ tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk/xdocs/config/workers.xml Sun Jun 4 02:32:30 2006
@@ -172,9 +170,21 @@
D
I noted a spelling mistake in the log line below, endpont should
probably be endpoint (missing i).
-Dave
On 6/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk/native/common/jk_ajp_common.c (original)
+++ tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk/native/common/jk_ajp_common.c S
On 6/3/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mladen Turk wants to add some small changes. After that we will do some
testing again and then release. Any input from your side about
intermediate test results on trunk will be highly appreciated.
OK, I see that mladen has recently checked in s
There was a thread in late March
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11425956601&r=1&w=2) which looked
like was going to lead to a new release of mod_jk which would fix a
number of outstanding bugs, but I never saw that 1.2.16 was tagged for
testing.
I'm willing to test once 1.2.16 is tagged as
On 3/7/06, Yaroslav Sokolov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I can make the next conclusions:
>
> 1. Tomcat eats resources on first opening of any jsp page and never returns
> them back - servlets just are never unloaded.
> 2. As it happens in all the versions of Tomcat, there are many jsps, not
>
On 3/5/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> > Many cases would benefit from more control over memory - hosting or
> > embedded or sites with lots of jsps or lots of data. Forcing all
> > static content in memory is not the best use of the memory.
>
> There's no
On 10/20/05, Mladen Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seems there is low interest on JK 1.2.15 although it resolves
> lots of issues compared with released 1.2.14.1 :(
>
> Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
> be declared as stable that I'm missing?
I found 1.2.15 to be stabl
42 matches
Mail list logo
