https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
2016 17:24, Abdessamed MANSOURI wrote:
> >>> Hello all, how are you?? i hope you are all fine :)
> >>>
> >>> I was very busy last days so i didn't have time, but i noticed that my
> >>> patch for the bug 52952 didn't accepted and no feedback ha
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Abdessamed MANSOURI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33813|0 |1
is obsolete|
busy last days so i didn't have time, but i noticed that my
>>> patch for the bug 52952 didn't accepted and no feedback has been written,
>>> why?
>>
>> I can only answer for myself. Enhancements get a lot less of my
>> attention than bugs unless
rrect it before me (i feel as useless) :)
2016-05-18 20:35 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> On 18/05/2016 17:24, Abdessamed MANSOURI wrote:
> > Hello all, how are you?? i hope you are all fine :)
> >
> > I was very busy last days so i didn't have time, but i noticed that my
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
Some feedback on the patch.
Objects is Java 7+. Tomcat 7 must run on Java 6 so that part of the patch needs
re-work.
Otherwise the patch looks OK for what it does. What it misses is that there may
be multip
On 18/05/2016 17:24, Abdessamed MANSOURI wrote:
> Hello all, how are you?? i hope you are all fine :)
>
> I was very busy last days so i didn't have time, but i noticed that my
> patch for the bug 52952 didn't accepted and no feedback has been written,
> why?
I c
Hello all, how are you?? i hope you are all fine :)
I was very busy last days so i didn't have time, but i noticed that my
patch for the bug 52952 didn't accepted and no feedback has been written,
why?
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Thank you all for you time :)
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Abdessamed MANSOURI changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33811|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #4 from Abdessamed MANSOURI ---
Created attachment 33811
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33811&action=edit
Patch
This is a patch for duplication with some code enhancements (replacing iterator
loops with enha
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
That should be fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #2 from Abdessamed MANSOURI ---
For checking for duplicates its better to use sets than lists for storing
Extension and ManifestResource inside ExtensionValidator and overriding equals
and hashcode, but HashSet its based on HashMap
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--
Configure bugmail: h
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas 2012-03-20 20:17:06 UTC ---
Adding a duplicate check should be trivial.
There should be one validator per instance rather than one per context so
adding it to the Server is likely the best solution.
--
Con
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
Bug #: 52952
Summary: Improve ExtensionValidator handling for embedded
scenarios
Product: Tomcat 7
Version: 7.0.26
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
15 matches
Mail list logo
