When I submitted a bug and fix recently, I promised to develop some unit
tests to demonstrate the behaviour of my change.
I don't want to get into a *#!&ing contest here, but I switched away
from eclipse a long time ago, when IBM threw in the towel over not
having a pure java workbench. Having
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52393
Bug #: 52393
Summary: MapELResolver.getType always returns Object.class
instead of the real type
Product: Tomcat 7
Version: 7.0.22
Platform: PC
OS/Version: L
2011/12/28 Brian Burch :
> When I submitted a bug and fix recently, I promised to develop some unit
> tests to demonstrate the behaviour of my change.
>
> I don't want to get into a *#!&ing contest here, but I switched away from
> eclipse a long time ago, when IBM threw in the towel over not having
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52393
Konstantin Kolinko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On 28/12/2011 10:49, Brian Burch wrote:
> So... can I submit a patch for these three changes to build.xml? I am
> sure this will make some of you nervous, but it seems the cleanest
> approach to me.
I have no issues with "tweaking" build.xml if it makes integration
easier with Eclipse, NetBeans, a
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project tomcat-tc7.0.x-validate has an issue affecting its community
integration.
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project tomcat-trunk-validate has an issue affecting its community integration.
Th
Author: markt
Date: Wed Dec 28 16:22:16 2011
New Revision: 1225219
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1225219&view=rev
Log:
Review by kkolinko.
- Remove FORM auth specific call.
- Javadoc formatting.
- Honour the cache attribute of the authenticator.
Modified:
tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache
On 27/12/2011 21:36, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 1. I think the AuthenticatoBase#cache flag should be honored.
Agreed. Fixed.
> 2. Constants.FORM_PRINCIPAL_NOTE is specific to FormAuthenticator.
> Should it be used here?
Removed.
> 3. Javadoc formatting for the method needs some and .
Done.
Given we see almost as many spam changes as valid ones, is it time for this:
http://wiki.apache.org/general/OurWikiFarm#per_wiki_access_control_-_tighten_your_wiki_just_a_little.2C_benefit_just_a_lot
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mai
Author: markt
Date: Wed Dec 28 16:26:46 2011
New Revision: 1225222
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1225222&view=rev
Log:
Review by kkolinko.
- Remove FORM auth specific call.
- Javadoc formatting.
- Honour the cache attribute of the authenticator.
Modified:
tomcat/tc7.0.x/trunk/ (prop
Author: markt
Date: Wed Dec 28 20:40:39 2011
New Revision: 1225327
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1225327&view=rev
Log:
Resolve Eclipse warnings in o.a.tomcat.net package
Modified:
tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/NioChannel.java
tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util
Author: markt
Date: Wed Dec 28 21:21:31 2011
New Revision: 1225343
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1225343&view=rev
Log:
Fix https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52316
Improve response length logging when sendfile is being used
Modified:
tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/catali
Author: markt
Date: Wed Dec 28 21:29:00 2011
New Revision: 1225345
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1225345&view=rev
Log:
Fix https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52316
Improve response length logging when sendfile is being used
Modified:
tomcat/tc7.0.x/trunk/ (props chan
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52316
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
You may have read about a recently announced vulnerability rooted in the
Java hashtable implementation [1]. Since Apache Tomcat uses a hashtable
for storing HTTP request parameters, it is affected by this issue.
As per [1], it appears that Oracle will not be providing a fix for this
vulnerability
On 29/12/11 02:30, Mark Thomas wrote:
Given we see almost as many spam changes as valid ones, is it time for this:
http://wiki.apache.org/general/OurWikiFarm#per_wiki_access_control_-_tighten_your_wiki_just_a_little.2C_benefit_just_a_lot
I already expected to ask for permission before making a
On 28/12/11 23:18, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 28/12/2011 10:49, Brian Burch wrote:
So... can I submit a patch for these three changes to build.xml? I am
sure this will make some of you nervous, but it seems the cleanest
approach to me.
I have no issues with "tweaking" build.xml if it makes integrat
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project tomcat-tc7.0.x-validate has an issue affecting its community
integration.
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project tomcat-trunk-validate has an issue affecting its community integration.
Th
> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> Subject: Improving wiki security
> Given we see almost as many spam changes as valid ones, is it
> time for this:
> http://wiki.apache.org/general/OurWikiFarm#per_wiki_access_control_-
> _tighten_your_wiki_just_a_little.2C_benefit_just_a_lot
That
On 28/12/11 14:40, Bill Barker wrote:
To whom it may engage...
This caught my attention, but I am puzzled (see details below).
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gum
"Brian Burch" wrote in message news:4efbea99.1020...@pingtoo.com...
On 28/12/11 14:40, Bill Barker wrote:
To whom it may engage...
This caught my attention, but I am puzzled (see details below).
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit ht
On 29/12/11 15:50, Bill Barker wrote:
Thanks for looking at the two errors for me, Bill. It was hard to see
your comments because the formatting of your reply appeared mangled when
I received it. I have snipped out everything except the important bits
below...
"Brian Burch" wrote in mes
24 matches
Mail list logo
