DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28222] - getRequestURL() in forwarded jsp/servlet doesn't return new url

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28222. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37213] New: - problem when running tomcat with -security option

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37213. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

Re: Sandbox ?

2005-10-24 Thread Remy Maucherat
Costin Manolache wrote: On 10/23/05, Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm thinking more as an 'uses' - you create ByteBuffers ( maybe direct buffers ), and you set it in the ByteChunk. Extend is not the best choice - it would be hard to work with direct ( or other ) buffers. I'm

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37215] New: - Wrong interpretation of static Content(Excel-File)

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37215. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37215] - Wrong interpretation of static Content(Excel-File)

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37215. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27371] - java.lang.ThreadDeath caused by log4j when reloading Tomcat app

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37218] - Configurable wait-time before invalidating ClassLoader on webapp redeploy

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Mladen Turk
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm missing? I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably because the clash of a

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37218] - Configurable wait-time before invalidating ClassLoader on webapp redeploy

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37220] New: - Semi-colon in filename HTTP bug

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37220] - Semi-colon in filename HTTP bug

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37220] - Semi-colon in filename HTTP bug

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37218] - Configurable wait-time before invalidating ClassLoader on webapp redeploy

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37220] - Semi-colon in filename HTTP bug

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37220. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37218] - Configurable wait-time before invalidating ClassLoader on webapp redeploy

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 37218] - Configurable wait-time before invalidating ClassLoader on webapp redeploy

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37218. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Glenn Nielsen
I plan on installing 1.2.15 on FreeBSD 5.3 and Solaris 7 today and do some minimal testing. Glenn On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:17:56PM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm missing? I'll

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27371] - java.lang.ThreadDeath caused by log4j when reloading Tomcat app

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27371] - java.lang.ThreadDeath caused by log4j when reloading Tomcat app

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27371] - java.lang.ThreadDeath caused by log4j when reloading Tomcat app

2005-10-24 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27371. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Peter Rossbach
Sorry for late response, but I start testing and hope finish the test at next two days First testresults at Suse 9.3, Windows XP looks very well Peter Mladen Turk schrieb: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm

Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Jean-frederic Clere
Mladen Turk wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to be declared as stable that I'm missing? I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably

Re: [VOTE] JK 1.2.15

2005-10-24 Thread Glenn Nielsen
I have built mod_jk 1.2.15 for apache 2.0.55 on both Solaris 7 (Sun CC) and FreeBSD 5.3. Build and normal use appear to be fine. +1 to release as stable Regards, Glenn On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 05:56:55PM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote: Hi, JK 1.2.15 has been tagged last week. Please see the:

Status/Authority of AJP/1.5

2005-10-24 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Questions since some interesting ideas have popped up with respect to the next flavor of AJP... firstoff, who holds the AJP standard; is it the ASF? Second, what is the status of AJP/1.5 and where is it discussed? I would like to float some various questions to not only introduce some 'flush'

Re: Status/Authority of AJP/1.5

2005-10-24 Thread Bill Barker
- Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@tomcat.apache.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 1:52 PM Subject: Status/Authority of AJP/1.5 Questions since some interesting ideas have popped up with respect to the next flavor of AJP... firstoff, who holds

Re: Status/Authority of AJP/1.5

2005-10-24 Thread Costin Manolache
I tought some time ago AJP was 'deprecated' - to be replaced with plain HTTP and mod_proxy ? Costin On 10/24/05, Bill Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@tomcat.apache.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 1:52 PM

Re: Status/Authority of AJP/1.5

2005-10-24 Thread Bill Barker
- Original Message - From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List dev@tomcat.apache.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:11 PM Subject: Re: Status/Authority of AJP/1.5 I tought some time ago AJP was 'deprecated' - to be replaced with plain HTTP and mod_proxy ?

Re: Status/Authority of AJP/1.5

2005-10-24 Thread Costin Manolache
I see. Sorry, I've been sleeping for quite a while, I'm slowly getting up to speed with the latest developments. Are you saying that mod_proxy_ajp is significantly faster than mod_proxy ? That's interesting. To answer your question - ajp10 and ajp11 were used in JServ, developed in Apache. Ajp12