Re: Fix for old SAX issue causing bug 40356

Mark Thomas wrote: Hi, Can anyone remember anything about the SAX bug referred to in this commit? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=105096762802715&w=2 No, but there's nothing in the spec which says the attributes have to be called in order. People should avoid crazy hacks, I think

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40356] - expressions in XML attributes evaluated in wrong order

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

5.5.21?

I would assume that by this time there is a sufficient collection of fixes to 5.5.20 that may well argue for a 5.5.21 release. I know the Tomcat development community has been largely focused on 6.0 releases, but as one who will have to freeze upon a 5.5.x release in the near future, I'm searc

Re: 5.5.21?

+1 to build a release 5.5.21 Regards Peter Am 21.01.2007 um 17:43 schrieb Jess Holle: I would assume that by this time there is a sufficient collection of fixes to 5.5.20 that may well argue for a 5.5.21 release. I know the Tomcat development community has been largely focused on 6.0 re

Re: 5.5.21?

On 1/21/07, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One fix of interest that I am aware of in 5.5.21 is the AJP flush packets fix. We can certainly patch that into our Tomcat, but I'd rather be able to move to a 5.5.21 with any other collected fixes as well -- and avoid discrepancies between our

Re: Fix for old SAX issue causing bug 40356

Remy Maucherat wrote: > Mark Thomas wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Can anyone remember anything about the SAX bug referred to in this >> commit? >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=105096762802715&w=2 > > No, but there's nothing in the spec which says the attributes have to be > called in order.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41428] New: - org.apache.tomcat.dbcp.dbcp.BasicDataSourceFactory URL Parsing Bug

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37869] - Cannot obtain client certificate with SSL / client certificate authentication using APR components

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40220] - Order of jar loading affects packaged resources

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Fix for old SAX issue causing bug 40356

Hello Mark, Thank you, and William & Remy for looking at this issue. The JSP in question has several expressions. I thought the following in the JSP 2.0 spec (section JSP.1.12.3) would apply: Expressions are evaluated left-to-right in the JSP page. This does not apply when expressions are

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 38198] - When using context xml definitions standalone file, tomcat wrongly uses the file name instead the context path definition

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40214] - web.xml error-page malfunctions for jsf requests

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Fix for old SAX issue causing bug 40356

"Dies Koper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hello Mark, > > Thank you, and William & Remy for looking at this issue. > > The JSP in question has several expressions. I thought the following in > the JSP 2.0 spec (section JSP.1.12.3) would apply: > > Expressions a

Bug report for Tomcat 3 [2007/01/21]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Bug report for Watchdog [2007/01/21]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Bug report for Tomcat 4 [2007/01/21]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Bug report for Tomcat 5 [2007/01/21]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned