Re: session-timeout and maxInactiveInterval

2016-06-21 Thread Mark Thomas 
On 21/06/2016 03:54, mw...@loftware.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 11:32 AM
>> To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: session-timeout and maxInactiveInterval
>>
>> On 20/06/2016 16:00, mw...@loftware.com wrote:
>>> We are running 7.0.69 and Java 1.8.0_91.
>>>
>>> We ran into an incident at a customer where the customer had set
>>> session-timeout to 0 – which according to the servlet 3.0 spec, the
>>> session should never time out.  However, the customer was basically
>>> seeing the session timeout immediately.  When we changed
>>> session-timeout to a larger number (30) and restarted, the problem
>> immediately went away.
>>
>> Set how?
>>
>> I've looked through the code and everything looks OK.
>>
>> What is the simplest possible test case that demonstrates this with a clean
>> Tomcat install? (I'm thinking of something along the lines of changing the
>> timeout in the web.xml for the examples app and adding a JSP that
>> demonstrates the problem.)
>>
>> Mark
>>
> 
> +1
> Touche, barking up the wrong tree here.  Turns out to be an issue with 
> Granite, for some reason using the Tomcat parameters, but using them wrong 
> (fortunately we were able to work around the bug).
> 
> Sorry to waste your time.

Not at all. The question and answer is in the archives and could well
proof to provide a useful clue to someone facing a similar issue in the
future.

Mark

> 
> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks like setMaxInactiveInterval _/may/_ be using the value of
>>> session-timeout if it is not explicitly set, and if so, is not
>>> handling the session-timeout = 0 case specially.  It also looks like
>>> maxInactiveInterval is really controlling the lifetime of the session.
>>>  But I have also not been through the Tomcat code often, so I am not
>>> 100% sure I’m looking in the right spot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Has anyone seen this issue before?  Am I misinterpreting something?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Top 5 Trends in Enterprise Labeling for 2016
>>> <http://resources.loftware.com/2016-Top-5-Trends-Enterprise-Labeling.h
>>> tml>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> <http://www.loftware.com>
>>>
>>> 249 Corporate Drive, Portsmouth, NH 03801
>>> Website: loftware.com <http://www.loftware.com/> Connect with us:
>>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/LoftwareInc> | LinkedIn
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/loftware> | Google+
>>> <https://plus.google.com/116786447658424744021/posts>
>>> What is Enterprise Labeling?
>>> <http://loftware.com/topics/what-is-enterprise-labeling.cfm> Why it's
>>> essential for global businesses.
>>> Visit the Enterprise Labeling Blog for all of your industry news
>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org

RE: session-timeout and maxInactiveInterval

2016-06-20 Thread MWick 


> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 11:32 AM
> To: Tomcat Users List <users@tomcat.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: session-timeout and maxInactiveInterval
> 
> On 20/06/2016 16:00, mw...@loftware.com wrote:
> > We are running 7.0.69 and Java 1.8.0_91.
> >
> > We ran into an incident at a customer where the customer had set
> > session-timeout to 0 – which according to the servlet 3.0 spec, the
> > session should never time out.  However, the customer was basically
> > seeing the session timeout immediately.  When we changed
> > session-timeout to a larger number (30) and restarted, the problem
> immediately went away.
> 
> Set how?
> 
> I've looked through the code and everything looks OK.
> 
> What is the simplest possible test case that demonstrates this with a clean
> Tomcat install? (I'm thinking of something along the lines of changing the
> timeout in the web.xml for the examples app and adding a JSP that
> demonstrates the problem.)
> 
> Mark
> 

+1
Touche, barking up the wrong tree here.  Turns out to be an issue with Granite, 
for some reason using the Tomcat parameters, but using them wrong (fortunately 
we were able to work around the bug).

Sorry to waste your time.


> >
> >
> >
> > It looks like setMaxInactiveInterval _/may/_ be using the value of
> > session-timeout if it is not explicitly set, and if so, is not
> > handling the session-timeout = 0 case specially.  It also looks like
> > maxInactiveInterval is really controlling the lifetime of the session.
> >  But I have also not been through the Tomcat code often, so I am not
> > 100% sure I’m looking in the right spot.
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anyone seen this issue before?  Am I misinterpreting something?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Top 5 Trends in Enterprise Labeling for 2016
> > <http://resources.loftware.com/2016-Top-5-Trends-Enterprise-Labeling.h
> > tml>
> > --
> > --
> > <http://www.loftware.com>
> >
> > 249 Corporate Drive, Portsmouth, NH 03801
> > Website: loftware.com <http://www.loftware.com/> Connect with us:
> > Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/LoftwareInc> | LinkedIn
> > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/loftware> | Google+
> > <https://plus.google.com/116786447658424744021/posts>
> > What is Enterprise Labeling?
> > <http://loftware.com/topics/what-is-enterprise-labeling.cfm> Why it's
> > essential for global businesses.
> > Visit the Enterprise Labeling Blog for all of your industry news
> >
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org

Re: session-timeout and maxInactiveInterval

2016-06-20 Thread Mark Thomas 
On 20/06/2016 16:00, mw...@loftware.com wrote:
> We are running 7.0.69 and Java 1.8.0_91.
> 
> We ran into an incident at a customer where the customer had set
> session-timeout to 0 – which according to the servlet 3.0 spec, the
> session should never time out.  However, the customer was basically
> seeing the session timeout immediately.  When we changed session-timeout
> to a larger number (30) and restarted, the problem immediately went away.

Set how?

I've looked through the code and everything looks OK.

What is the simplest possible test case that demonstrates this with a
clean Tomcat install? (I'm thinking of something along the lines of
changing the timeout in the web.xml for the examples app and adding a
JSP that demonstrates the problem.)

Mark

> 
>  
> 
> It looks like setMaxInactiveInterval _/may/_ be using the value of
> session-timeout if it is not explicitly set, and if so, is not handling
> the session-timeout = 0 case specially.  It also looks like
> maxInactiveInterval is really controlling the lifetime of the session.
>  But I have also not been through the Tomcat code often, so I am not
> 100% sure I’m looking in the right spot.
> 
>  
> 
> Has anyone seen this issue before?  Am I misinterpreting something? 
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> Mark
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The Top 5 Trends in Enterprise Labeling for 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   249 Corporate Drive, Portsmouth, NH 03801
> Website: loftware.com 
> Connect with us: Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | Google+
> 
> What is Enterprise Labeling?
>  Why it's
> essential for global businesses.
> Visit the Enterprise Labeling Blog for all of your industry news
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org

RE: session-timeout vs. maxInactiveInterval

2009-06-25 Thread Caldarale, Charles R 
 From: Lynn Hollerman [mailto:gmh2...@louisiana.edu]
 Subject: session-timeout vs. maxInactiveInterval
 
 I have been looking around the Net for information about
 the items in the subject and tomcat; it appears that they
 are actually the same thing

Pretty much.  The Manager setting is used if the web.xml does not contain a 
session-timeout value.  Note the following from the servlet spec description 
of session-timeout:

If this element is not specified, the container must set its default timeout 
period.

Since Tomcat supplies a session-timeout element in the global conf/web.xml, 
you would have to remove that before the Manager setting became effective.

 - Chuck


THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY 
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received 
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its 
attachments from all computers.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org