On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Konstantin Kolinko
wrote:
> 2017-07-28 20:51 GMT+03:00 Roparzh Hemon :
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Konstantin Kolinko
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Double click on the server (in "Servers" view) -> set "[x] Publish
>>> module context to separate XML files".
>> Whe
> From: Igal @ Lucee.org [mailto:i...@lucee.org]
> Subject: Re: This is weird: can't bind to 443
> I agree about the "one more thing to go wrong", but fronting Tomcat with
> a Web Server gives a performance hit? I mean, sure, now requests for
> Tomcat have another step to go through, but all o
Chris,
On 8/2/2017 3:10 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
On 8/2/17 3:13 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote:
On 8/2/2017 11:48 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
I recommend fronting Tomcat with a web server like nginx or httpd,
This is an okay solution but it requires another component to be
installed/conf
With a little futzing around, setting up 443 as an authbind-able port,
and (as Christopher noted) correcting the spelling in the pathname, the
AUTHBIND option worked perfectly.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Now that I think about
it, I don't think any of the Linux installation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Igal,
On 8/2/17 3:13 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote:
> On 8/2/2017 11:48 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>>> From: James H. H. Lampert [mailto:jam...@touchtonecorp.com]
>>> Subject: Re: This is weird: can't bind to 443
Binding on ports < 1024 on L
On 8/2/2017 11:48 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: James H. H. Lampert [mailto:jam...@touchtonecorp.com]
Subject: Re: This is weird: can't bind to 443
Binding on ports < 1024 on Linux require elevated permissions, no?
If so, somebody please elaborate.
That's a Linux restriction/feature -
> From: James H. H. Lampert [mailto:jam...@touchtonecorp.com]
> Subject: Re: This is weird: can't bind to 443
> > Binding on ports < 1024 on Linux require elevated permissions, no?
> If so, somebody please elaborate.
That's a Linux restriction/feature - must be superuser to use the low port
num
On 8/2/17, 11:26 AM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote:
On 8/2/2017 11:13 AM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
I've just got finished moving a Tomcat instance's HTTPS connector from
8443 to 443, on a Google Compute Engine Debian instance (from
Bitnami's canned Trac image). Something I've done literally dozens of
On 8/2/2017 11:13 AM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
I've just got finished moving a Tomcat instance's HTTPS connector from
8443 to 443, on a Google Compute Engine Debian instance (from
Bitnami's canned Trac image). Something I've done literally dozens of
times on AS/400s, along with the occasional
I've just got finished moving a Tomcat instance's HTTPS connector from
8443 to 443, on a Google Compute Engine Debian instance (from Bitnami's
canned Trac image). Something I've done literally dozens of times on
AS/400s, along with the occasional WinDoze and Linux box. Always without
incident.
On 02/08/17 16:07, André Warnier (tomcat) wrote:
> Hi.
> Sorry to post this here, but I don't seem to find the right contact
> address through the website nor received emails, so if someone could
> point me to the right thing..
>
> I am being bombarded by some scammers, through my Tomcat committer
Hi.
Sorry to post this here, but I don't seem to find the right contact address through the
website nor received emails, so if someone could point me to the right thing..
I am being bombarded by some scammers, through my Tomcat committer email address, no doubt
scraped from some page here.
Do
On 02/08/17 14:57, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 8/1/17 4:17 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Yes. To unlock the *acceptor thread(s)*.
>>>
>>> (Emphasis mine)
>>>
>>> I understand, now. Thanks.
>
>> The acceptor is also unlocked when a Connector is paused (i.e. when
>> the server socket is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 8/1/17 4:17 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Yes. To unlock the *acceptor thread(s)*.
>>
>> (Emphasis mine)
>>
>> I understand, now. Thanks.
>
> The acceptor is also unlocked when a Connector is paused (i.e. when
> the server socket is NOT clo
2017-07-28 20:51 GMT+03:00 Roparzh Hemon :
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Konstantin Kolinko
> wrote:
>>
>> Eclipse by default places element for web application into
>> Tomcat's server.xml file.
>> This is a discouraged practice. A result of such configuration is that
>> when the application
15 matches
Mail list logo