On 10/04/17 07:42, Katya Todorova wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2017 07:50, Katya Todorova wrote:
>>
>>>
Applied. Many thanks.
If you'd like to work on this further then can I suggest you take a look
at Konstantin's comments:
>>
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 05/04/2017 07:50, Katya Todorova wrote:
>
>>
>>> Applied. Many thanks.
>>>
>>> If you'd like to work on this further then can I suggest you take a look
>>> at Konstantin's comments:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/vp5voob7elspflax
>>>
>>
On 05/04/2017 07:50, Katya Todorova wrote:
Applied. Many thanks.
If you'd like to work on this further then can I suggest you take a look
at Konstantin's comments:
http://markmail.org/message/vp5voob7elspflax
I looked at the comments and it seems there are things to be clarified
before goin
>
> Applied. Many thanks.
>
> If you'd like to work on this further then can I suggest you take a look
> at Konstantin's comments:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/vp5voob7elspflax
I looked at the comments and it seems there are things to be clarified
before going in this direction:
- should we in
On 31/03/17 14:41, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 31/03/17 09:43, Katya Todorova wrote:
>> I've created a separate pull request for leading zeros issue since I think
>> it requires additional discussion whether to be submitted or not. Although
>> this fix honors the specification, it leads to different
On 31/03/17 09:43, Katya Todorova wrote:
>> You can either create a pull request on github or create a Bugzilla
>> issue and attach a patch.
>
>
>> Mark
>>
>
> I've created a separate pull request for leading zeros issue since I think
> it requires additional discussion whether to be submitted o
> You can either create a pull request on github or create a Bugzilla
> issue and attach a patch.
> Mark
>
I've created a separate pull request for leading zeros issue since I think
it requires additional discussion whether to be submitted or not. Although
this fix honors the specification, it l
On 29/03/17 15:16, Katya Todorova wrote:
>>
>> I recommend using the code coverage reports as a guide.
>>
>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/tomcat/tomcat9/coverage/
>
>
>>
>> and add test cases if they increase code coverage. Hmm. It looks like
>> there is some low hanging fruit in the parsing co
>
> I recommend using the code coverage reports as a guide.
>
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/tomcat/tomcat9/coverage/
>
> and add test cases if they increase code coverage. Hmm. It looks like
> there is some low hanging fruit in the parsing code to improve coverage.
>
> You can run the tests wi
On 29/03/17 07:06, Katya Todorova wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/17 15:23, Katya Todorova wrote:
>>> Hi,
r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit
>> tests.
It includes a performance test which indicates - on my mac
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 28/03/17 15:23, Katya Todorova wrote:
> > Hi,
> >> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit
> tests.
> >> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at least
> >> - that the performance impac
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 28/03/17 15:23, Katya Todorova wrote:
> > Hi,
> >> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit
> tests.
> >> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at least
> >> - that the performance impac
On 28/03/17 15:23, Katya Todorova wrote:
> Hi,
>> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit tests.
>> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at least
>> - that the performance impact is in the noise. I'd like to see better
>> performance for full
Hi,
> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit tests.
> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at least
> - that the performance impact is in the noise. I'd like to see better
> performance for full IPv6 addresses but the current code looks to be
On 22/03/17 14:13, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2017-03-21 18:01 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas :
>> On 21 March 2017 14:14:19 GMT+00:00, Christopher Schultz
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about an option to disable the validity-checking, in case someone
>>> in the field finds a case they need to support, or if the
2017-03-21 18:01 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas :
> On 21 March 2017 14:14:19 GMT+00:00, Christopher Schultz
> wrote:
>>
>>How about an option to disable the validity-checking, in case someone
>>in the field finds a case they need to support, or if they don't care
>>about hostname-checking and want their
On 21 March 2017 14:14:19 GMT+00:00, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
>Mark,
>
>On 3/19/17 4:55 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of
>> unit tests.
>>
>> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at
>> least - that t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 3/19/17 4:55 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of
> unit tests.
>
> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at
> least - that the performance impact is in
18 matches
Mail list logo
