Please see updated https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/296
- Ray
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 3:35 PM Raymond Auge
wrote:
> Hey Mark, I tested those changes and they solve the packaging issue for
> both jpms and OSGi.
>
> I'll update the pr to reflect the change later today I hope.
>
> I did encou
Hey Mark, I tested those changes and they solve the packaging issue for
both jpms and OSGi.
I'll update the pr to reflect the change later today I hope.
I did encounter some further jpms related issues but those were beyond
packaging and need other questions answered before moving forward.
- Ray
On 13/06/2020 03:53, Raymond Auge wrote:
> Actually Bootstrap has a comment
>
> // Copied from ExceptionUtils since that class is not visible during start
>
> So it seems like perhaps the change should be ported.
Agreed. So if we do that and make the other changes I outlined where
does that leav
Actually Bootstrap has a comment
// Copied from ExceptionUtils since that class is not visible during start
So it seems like perhaps the change should be ported.
- Ray
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:45 PM Raymond Auge
wrote:
> There is one difference between
>
> org.apache.tomcat.util.ExceptionU
There is one difference between
org.apache.tomcat.util.ExceptionUtils.handleThrowable(Throwable)
and
org.apache.catalina.startup.Bootstrap.handleThrowable(Throwable)
that is that ExceptionUtils also swallows StackOverflowError while
Bootstrap does not.
Should that be ported over or is it a deal
On 12/06/2020 14:15, Raymond Auge wrote:
> Hey Mark,
>
> I'll have to get back to this convo in a day or so.
>
> I'll test your theory but at first glance it sounds like going in the
> right direction.
No rush. I'd rather take time and get this right.
Thanks,
Mark
>
> - Ray
>
> On Thu, Jun
Hey Mark,
I'll have to get back to this convo in a day or so.
I'll test your theory but at first glance it sounds like going in the right
direction.
- Ray
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:08 PM Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 11/06/2020 21:59, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > On 11/06/2020 21:24, Raymond Auge wrote:
On 11/06/2020 21:59, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 11/06/2020 21:24, Raymond Auge wrote:
>> This can totally be fixed in configuration. There is no problem. I just
>> wanted to make sure that in doing so we wouldn't just be pushing some
>> dirt under the rug so to speak.
>
> I'm concerned we might be do
On 11/06/2020 21:24, Raymond Auge wrote:
> This can totally be fixed in configuration. There is no problem. I just
> wanted to make sure that in doing so we wouldn't just be pushing some
> dirt under the rug so to speak.
I'm concerned we might be doing exactly that now we are heading into a
JPMS w
This can totally be fixed in configuration. There is no problem. I just
wanted to make sure that in doing so we wouldn't just be pushing some dirt
under the rug so to speak.
:)
- Ray
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 3:25 PM Raymond Auge
wrote:
> To be clear, it's not necessarily having _all of a packag
To be clear, it's not necessarily having _all of a package_. It's more
about all the reachable class references. For instance jdeps looks at
classes and finds any reachable references. So does bnd for calculating
OSGi metadata.
So the issue is not really about packages, it's about having missing c
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 9:01 PM Mark Thomas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed in PR#298 [1], properly/fully/correctly supporting JPMS /
> OSGi gets trickier than necessary with the bootstrap JAR because of the
> way we currently package it with the minimum that it needs and duplicate
> some classes.
12 matches
Mail list logo
