Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Jim Manico wrote: > I guess we could throw a run time exception if the value contained any of those. other than that, I'm not sure how to behave I think this is the best case scenario for v0 cookies. Perhaps, if you really want to get fancy, you can add a flag t

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Remy Maucherat wrote: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Jim Manico wrote: > I guess we could throw a run time exception if the value contained any of those. other than that, I'm not sure how to behave I think this is the best case scenario for v0 cookies. Perhaps, if you really want to get fanc

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41861] - Tomcat Windows installer behaves unexpectedly

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: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

> The security issue only exists because of a fundamentally broken servlet in the examples, and assumes the user will click on a URL. That's not what I call a security problem. There is a whole class of security problems that are driven by bad server code and user interaction, such as reflect

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Mark Thomas wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Jim Manico wrote: > I guess we could throw a run time exception if the value contained any of those. other than that, I'm not sure how to behave I think this is the best case scenario for v0 cookies. Perhaps, if you rea

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Filip - you are 100% correct on this thread. Are you basically the traffic cop guarding the core of Tomcat? - Jim Mark Thomas wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Jim Manico wrote: > I guess we could throw a run time exception if the value contained any of those. othe

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Mark Thomas wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Jim Manico wrote: > I guess we could throw a run time exception if the value contained any of those. other than that, I'm not sure how to behave I think this is the best case scenario for v0 cookies. Perhaps, if you rea

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:44 -0500, Jim Manico wrote: > Filip - you are 100% correct on this thread. Are you basically the > traffic cop guarding the core of Tomcat? I understand, you are not impacted by the behavior change, and as a result this allows you to be "fair", I suppose. The issue is tha

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

That post was meant to go to Filip only, since he is an old friend. I was not trying to poke fun at your perspective on this public list, Remy. I'm going exit stage left and stop adding my thoughts to this thread. My apologies. - Jim On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:44 -0500, Jim Manico wrote: Fil

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Remy Maucherat wrote: On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:44 -0500, Jim Manico wrote: Filip - you are 100% correct on this thread. Are you basically the traffic cop guarding the core of Tomcat? I understand, you are not impacted by the behavior change, and as a result this allows you to be "fair"

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:17 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:44 -0500, Jim Manico wrote: > > > >> Filip - you are 100% correct on this thread. Are you basically the > >> traffic cop guarding the core of Tomcat? > >> > > > > I unders

svn commit: r620335 - in /tomcat/trunk/webapps/docs: config/project.xml config/systemprops.xml tomcat-docs.xsl

Author: markt Date: Sun Feb 10 13:33:35 2008 New Revision: 620335 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=620335&view=rev Log: Add a page to the config docs detailing the various system properties that are available. Added: tomcat/trunk/webapps/docs/config/systemprops.xml (with props) Modifi

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 44383] - Possible leak: tomcat does not release Jasper compilation contexts

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: svn commit: r620335 - in /tomcat/trunk/webapps/docs: config/project.xml config/systemprops.xml tomcat-docs.xsl

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: markt Date: Sun Feb 10 13:33:35 2008 New Revision: 620335 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=620335&view=rev Log: Add a page to the config docs detailing the various system properties that are available. The recent discussion on configuration options remind

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Remy Maucherat wrote: On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:17 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:44 -0500, Jim Manico wrote: Filip - you are 100% correct on this thread. Are you basically the traffic cop guarding the core of Tomcat?

svn commit: r620354 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt

Author: fhanik Date: Sun Feb 10 14:59:24 2008 New Revision: 620354 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=620354&view=rev Log: cast vote Modified: tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt Modified: tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt?rev=6

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Would this be ok, given its a spec class? or do we have to leave this class untouched and modify it elsewhere, in which case it'd be more of a hack. I think, as long as we leave the public interface unchanged, changing the spec class would be fine. The spec sa

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:29 +, Mark Thomas wrote: > Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: > > Would this be ok, given its a spec class? or do we have to leave this > > class untouched and modify it elsewhere, in which case it'd be more of a > > hack. > > I think, as long as we leave the public inte

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

"Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:29 +, Mark Thomas wrote: >> Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: >> > Would this be ok, given its a spec class? or do we have to leave this >> > class untouched and modify it elsewhere, in which

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43925] - org.apache.jasper.runtime.BodyContentImpl causing huge memory allocations

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: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Bill Barker wrote: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:29 +, Mark Thomas wrote: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Would this be ok, given its a spec class? or do we have to leave this class untouched and modify i

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

Mark Thomas wrote: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Would this be ok, given its a spec class? or do we have to leave this class untouched and modify it elsewhere, in which case it'd be more of a hack. I think, as long as we leave the public interface unchanged, changing the spec class would be

Re: Cookies are broken in 6.0.16?

On Feb 10, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:17 -0700, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:44 -0500, Jim Manico wrote: Filip - you are 100% correct on this thread. Are you basically t

Re: tomcat native documentation

Henri Gomez wrote: Good. Just a point : INFO: Loaded APR based Apache Tomcat Native library 1.1.12. ==> INFO: Loaded APR based Apache Tomcat Native library 1.1.13. I have put x.y ;-) Cheers Jean-Frederic :-) 2008/2/9, jean-frederic clere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi, I have prepared a do

svn commit: r620434 - /tomcat/connectors/trunk/jni/xdocs/index.xml

Author: jfclere Date: Sun Feb 10 23:41:37 2008 New Revision: 620434 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=620434&view=rev Log: Don't put a real version in the example. Modified: tomcat/connectors/trunk/jni/xdocs/index.xml Modified: tomcat/connectors/trunk/jni/xdocs/index.xml URL: http://svn

Bug report for Tomcat 5 [2008/02/10]

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

Bug report for Tomcat 4 [2008/02/10]

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

Bug report for Watchdog [2008/02/10]

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

Bug report for Tomcat 3 [2008/02/10]

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