On 03.06.2015 21:57, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 03/06/2015 20:50, Christopher Schultz wrote:
Bjørn,
On 6/3/15 2:52 PM, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
Just saw a discussion about Tomcat DBCP 8.0.18 issue, where Tomcat
JDBC pooling vs Commons DBCP 2 pooling was briefly discussed.. So
now I am a bit curious.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 6/3/15 3:53 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 20:48, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>
>
>
>> I don't understand the underlying reasons why Tomcat treats
>> symlinks specially...
>
>
>
> It is to do with case sensitivity on non case s
On 03/06/2015 20:50, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Bjørn,
>
> On 6/3/15 2:52 PM, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
>> Just saw a discussion about Tomcat DBCP 8.0.18 issue, where Tomcat
>> JDBC pooling vs Commons DBCP 2 pooling was briefly discussed.. So
>> now I am a bit curious... I am using Tomcat JDBC, be
On 03/06/2015 20:48, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> I don't
> understand the underlying reasons why Tomcat treats symlinks
> specially...
It is to do with case sensitivity on non case sensitive file systems.
The check we have to add on Windows to stop things like JSP source
disclosure by reques
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Bjørn,
On 6/3/15 2:52 PM, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
> Just saw a discussion about Tomcat DBCP 8.0.18 issue, where Tomcat
> JDBC pooling vs Commons DBCP 2 pooling was briefly discussed.. So
> now I am a bit curious... I am using Tomcat JDBC, because I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ray,
On 6/3/15 9:44 AM, Ray Holme wrote:
>> I'm curious as to why you are using hard links instead of
>> symlinks. If you copy a new file over a hard link, you un-couple
>> it from the rest of the series of hard links. If you do the same
>> with sym
Hmm, interesting... Thanks for explanation Mark!
2015-06-03 12:22 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas :
> On 03/06/2015 07:24, Tweak Ronaldo wrote:
> > Thanks Mark, yes I have mixed together Tomcat JDBC 8 and DBCP 7, my bad.
> > Although I don't understand why Tomcat JDBC don't use DBCP as default
> > solution
Just saw a discussion about Tomcat DBCP 8.0.18 issue, where Tomcat JDBC pooling
vs Commons DBCP 2 pooling was briefly discussed..
So now I am a bit curious... I am using Tomcat JDBC, because I read somewhere
that this was better than DBCP (guess they were talking about DBCP 1
then). Does this mea
>Really? Tomcat 6.0 replaced the server/lib/, shared/lib/, and
common/lib/ directories in favor of a single, unified lib/ directory.
That doesn't strike you as an important change?
Again, you are right. Single is much better, but I still only needed one link
for the SQL jar and moving that to lib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ray,
On 6/2/15 6:42 PM, Ray Holme wrote:
> I have not seen changes to the lib structures for any of the tomcat
> releases I have used and that spans back 5 years or more (well OK,
> at one point symbolic links worked, now they don't unless I change
Mark, big thanks for a quick historical review, it was very intreresting!
I was thinking that tomcat-jdbc is something new, but wasn't sure about
project maintenance.
2015-06-03 12:22 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas :
> On 03/06/2015 07:24, Tweak Ronaldo wrote:
> > Thanks Mark, yes I have mixed together To
The Apache Tomcat team announces that support for Apache Tomcat 6.0.x
will end on 31 December 2016.
This means that after 31 December 2016:
- releases from the 6.0.x branch are highly unlikely
- bugs affecting only the 6.0.x branch will not be addressed
- security vulnerability reports will not be
On 03/06/2015 07:24, Tweak Ronaldo wrote:
> Thanks Mark, yes I have mixed together Tomcat JDBC 8 and DBCP 7, my bad.
> Although I don't understand why Tomcat JDBC don't use DBCP as default
> solution for connections pooling.
Tomcat does - and always has - used Commons DBCP for connection pooling
b
13 matches
Mail list logo
