https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wolfg...@illmeyer.com
--- Comment #26 fr
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32446|0 |1
is obsolet
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #24 from mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 32456
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32456&action=edit
Maven project for a valve that dumps the full request with the body
NOTE: For our u
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #23 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #22)
> - Tomcat 7, root (r1155369) to tip: 5 commits: r1446110, r1446138, r1446138,
> *r156*, r1561675, r1518197. The single *starred* commit cha
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #22 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #18)
> Adding your dummy classes means wrapping is supported and, probably, that
> there is more API stability that what is actually the case.
This is th
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #21 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #20)
> Yes, I did note that "I guess in hindsight I could have implemented a
> filter". This is a feature for hackers, my vote is to let people deal with
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #20 from Remy Maucherat ---
Yes, I did note that "I guess in hindsight I could have implemented a filter".
This is a feature for hackers, my vote is to let people deal with it to avoid
having any additional support burden.
--
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #19 from mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com ---
Remy, please re-read my previous comments
(https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014#c5 &
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014#c6).
This need is far f
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #18 from Remy Maucherat ---
Adding your dummy classes means wrapping is supported and, probably, that there
is more API stability that what is actually the case. I continue to believe
that this is not a good idea. If people, lik
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #17 from mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com ---
I tend to agree more with Christopher, mainly because of this section of the
javadoc for the Valve interface that is misleading:
"Consume bytes from the input stream associated with the
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #16 from mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 32446
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32446&action=edit
Maven project for a valve that dumps the full request with the body
NOTE: For our u
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #15 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #14)
> Please note that these classes do nothing -- just like HttpServletWrapper.
That should have read "HttpServletRequestWrapper/HttpServletRespon
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Schultz ---
Remy, whether these classes are included or not, Valve authors can write their
own wrapper classes and wrap the Coyote request and response objects in them.
The only thing that is happening here
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #21974|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #12 from Remy Maucherat ---
Please read again my previous comment for the veto justification.
I don't believe the classes can be wrapped without issues, usually wrapping
occurs to deal with the streams and that will likely not
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Schultz ---
Remy, please help me understand why one cannot wrap a Coyote request/response?
I don't see a reason why a Valve in the chain would not wrap the request or
response in a way similar to a Filter i
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #10 from Remy Maucherat ---
Good thing it it works for you, but I'll have to veto its actual inclusion in
Tomcat: it would mean wrapping is possible and supported before the filter
chain, and it is not the case at the moment so
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mr.oliver.hernandez@
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #9 from mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com ---
Thanks Christopher. Your classes were a very good starting point for our use
case. I have a custom valve implemented now that logs the request body like we
need. I'll share it soon aft
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #8 from Remy Maucherat ---
Wrapping is not possible until the filter chain is reached, it's really quite
simple. If you want to change that, it is a big design change that you could
advocate for the servlet container, but I woul
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to mr.oliver.hernandez from comment #5)
> We're actually using JBoss 7.4, which my understanding is that internally
> it's using a branched version of Tomcat 7.
You will have to wait pr
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #6 from mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com ---
Oh, forgot to mention, our servers are SSL enabled, and the issue only occurs
when the requests are encrypted. So, tools like tcpdump/tcpmon won't help, we
need to see the entire request
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #5 from mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com ---
We're actually using JBoss 7.4, which my understanding is that internally it's
using a branched version of Tomcat 7.
Remy, can you please clarify? What exactly is not the point? Are yo
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #4 from Remy Maucherat ---
That is clearly not the point. Up until the filter chain, the core classes
should be used.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Schultz ---
Wow, a blast from the past. I had entirely forgotten about this.
I'll re-work the patch for trunk and see how far everything is interested in
back-porting. mr.oliver, what version of Tomcat are y
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #2 from mr.oliver.hernan...@gmail.com ---
I 100% agree that this should be added.
I'm running into the use case where I need to read a request's input stream,
and per the javadoc for Valve, I must wrap the request before passing
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45014
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-05-15
15:02:59 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=21974)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21974)
Request and response wrapper class implementatio
28 matches
Mail list logo
