https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
--- Comment #4 from mgrigorov ---
There is a known problem with SCI in 7.0.100
7.0.103 is being voted at the moment. You could test it from
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomcat/tomcat-7/v7.0.103/bin/
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #2 from dingli <382188...@qq.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #1)
> Tomcat tightened up the HTTP 0.9 parsing. It looks like there is an issue
> with requests of the form:
>
> GET / LF
>
> Prior to the parsing changes,
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #3 from dingli <382188...@qq.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #1)
> Tomcat tightened up the HTTP 0.9 parsing. It looks like there is an issue
> with requests of the form:
>
> GET / LF
>
> Prior to the parsing changes,
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
--- Comment #5 from zhander...@huawei.com ---
(In reply to mgrigorov from comment #4)
> There is a known problem with SCI in 7.0.100
> 7.0.103 is being voted at the moment. You could test it from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomcat/
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Product|Tomcat 7|Tomcat 9
Target Milestone|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64021
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #4 from Remy Maucherat ---
Why is 0.9 support not removed by now ? It sounds *quite* ridiculous to still
have it (clients which insist would still get something back).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee f
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #5 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #4)
> Why is 0.9 support not removed by now ? It sounds *quite* ridiculous to
> still have it (clients which insist would still get something back).
+1 for this in
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #6 from dingli <382188...@qq.com> ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #4)
> Why is 0.9 support not removed by now ? It sounds *quite* ridiculous to
> still have it (clients which insist would still get something back).
It i
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #7 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to dingli from comment #6)
> (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #4)
> > Why is 0.9 support not removed by now ? It sounds *quite* ridiculous to
> > still have it (clients which insist would
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #8 from dingli <382188...@qq.com> ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #7)
> (In reply to dingli from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #4)
> > > Why is 0.9 support not removed by now ? It sounds *quite
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--- Comment #9 from Remy Mau
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
Bug ID: 64243
Summary: Cannot find attribute maxThreads for
org.apache.tomcat.util.net.SocketProperties
Product: Tomcat 8
Version: 8.5.51
Hardware: PC
OS:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64243
Jaeyoon "Jay" Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 5:13 AM Violeta Georgieva
wrote:
> The proposed Apache Tomcat 7.0.103 release is now available for voting.
>
> It can be obtained from:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomcat/tomcat-7/v7.0.103/
> The Maven staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/r
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
remm pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new c870a1e Add a test case for BZ64240
c870a1e is de
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #10 from Remy Maucherat ---
I fail to see the problem so I added a test case to test HTTP/0.9 support
(using "GET /CRLF"), and it works for me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
remm pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new f1b9883 Rename poller thread
f1b9883 is described
На пн, 16.03.2020 г. в 11:13 Violeta Georgieva
написа:
>
> The proposed Apache Tomcat 7.0.103 release is now available for voting.
>
> It can be obtained from:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tomcat/tomcat-7/v7.0.103/
> The Maven staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/re
Message from: https://repository.apache.orgDeployer properties:"userAgent" = "maven-artifact/2.2.1 (Java 1.7.0_80; Windows 8.1 6.3)""userId" = "violetagg""ip" = "78.83.99.114"Details:The following artifacts have been promoted to the "Releases" [id=releases] repository/org/apache/tomcat/tomcat-i18n-
Author: violetagg
Date: Thu Mar 19 17:19:30 2020
New Revision: 38563
Log:
Release Tomcat 7.0.103
Added:
release/tomcat/tomcat-7/v7.0.103/
- copied from r38562, dev/tomcat/tomcat-7/v7.0.103/
Removed:
dev/tomcat/tomcat-7/v7.0.103/
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
violetagg pushed a commit to branch 7.0.x
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/7.0.x by this push:
new 2c343f5 Update Tomcat 7.0.103 release date
2c3
On 19/03/2020 13:49, r...@apache.org wrote:
> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>
> remm pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
>
>
> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
>
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
remm pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new 9730818 Allow multiple property sources
9730818 i
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
remm pushed a commit to branch master
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new 47afb7c Revert as relevant tests are already pres
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder tomcat-7-trunk while
building tomcat. Full details are available at:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/tomcat-7-trunk/builds/1644
Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: asf946_ubuntu
Build Reason: The AnyBranchSched
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
remm pushed a commit to branch 9.0.x
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/9.0.x by this push:
new 7ecda7d Allow multiple property sources
7ecda7d is
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #5)
> (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #4)
> > Why is 0.9 support not removed by now ? It sounds *quite* ridiculous to
> > still have it (clients whic
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
remm pushed a commit to branch 8.5.x
in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat.git
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/8.5.x by this push:
new 8adb6e1 Allow multiple property sources
8adb6e1 is
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #6 from Em Domingues ---
I assume this was intentional, but in the event it wasn't, the combination of
the patch for this issue and the previous "strict header value parsing" commit
have resulted in Tomcat rejecting all requests tha
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #12 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #11)
> (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #4)
> > > Why is 0.9 support not removed by now ? It sounds *
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #7 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Em Domingues from comment #6)
> I assume this was intentional, but in the event it wasn't, the combination
> of the patch for this issue and the previous "strict header value parsing"
> commit
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #8 from Em Domingues ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #7)
> (In reply to Em Domingues from comment #6)
> > I assume this was intentional, but in the event it wasn't, the combination
> > of the patch for this issue and th
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63691
--- Comment #10 from quaff ---
(In reply to Joshua Lipstone from comment #8)
> Can you please either undo this or change it so that the Jars are only
> scanned if they match the inclusion filter.
> As of 9.0.30, if you wanted to set the logic s
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64247
Bug ID: 64247
Summary: no-op JarScanner breaks back compatibility
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.31
Hardware: PC
OS: Mac OS X 10.1
Status: NEW
Severity:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64247
--- Comment #1 from quaff ---
If it's a designed feature, It should be targeted at tomcat 10, add a warning
in upgrade guide.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #13 from dingli <382188...@qq.com> ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #12)
> (In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #14 from dingli <382188...@qq.com> ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #10)
> I fail to see the problem so I added a test case to test HTTP/0.9 support
> (using "GET /CRLF"), and it works for me.
yesterday I can reproduce t
39 matches
Mail list logo
