So, as i understand this, the changed behavior is caused from using the localPort but this doesn't mean that the change was wrong in itself. It was just that it broke existing code for clustered / load balanced / proxied environments.
On the other hand, in that kind of environment, how do you deal with the use of request.getServerName() in BaseURLSourceImpl ? I too come to the conclusion that you'll always gonna need a custom implementation (or just a wrapper to Request that returns specific values for serverName and localPort) On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 20:52, Igor Drobiazko <[email protected]> wrote: > I just had a look into BaseURLSourcImpl in the 5.1.0.5 tag. Here is the > code: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tapestry/tapestry5/tags/releases/5.1.0.5/tapestry-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tapestry5/internal/services/BaseURLSourceImpl.java?view=markup > > As you can see the issue is not localPort vs. serverPort as in 5.1.0.5 the > port was not set into the base URL at all. Again, I believe that the default > implementation of the BaseURLSourceImpl is not usable for any app as the > ports 80 and 443 are just default values. How many applications out there > are using these ports? > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tapestry/tapestry5/trunk/tapestry-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tapestry5/internal/services/BaseURLSourceImpl.java?view=markup > > I see another issue here: Request interface is a generic version of > HttpServletRequest and PortletRequest. As of 5.2.0 Request has the > getLocalPort() method which is not available in PortletRequest. > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Robert Zeigler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Agreed. The vote wasn't on whether to release; 5.2.4 is released. The >> vote was to call 5.2.4 stable. >> I think it's pointless to call 5.2.4 GA if we know there's going to be a >> bug fix release 2 days later. It's saying: "Hi, here's a stable product. >> Except, we know it's not exactly stable in every environment. But we're >> going to /call/ it stable...". >> I was previously +1 on calling 5.2.4 GA based on my not finding any issues >> with it. But if the bug mentioned really does create an issue/bug in a >> clustered environment (and it certainly appears to), I would change my vote. >> With the refresh of the site, we're touting Tapestry's performance and >> stability and scalability (things like: easy to use in a clustered >> environment)... a bug like this is a bad first impression. /Especially/ >> since it's a trivial issue to fix. >> >> Robert >> >> On Dec 15, 2010, at 12/1511:59 AM , Massimo Lusetti wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Bob Harner <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Please release now AND commit to a bug fix release right after. >> > >> > The fact is that the release is made and the vote is for a GA release, >> > let's say a stable one, so here I'm with Andy. >> > >> > Cheers >> > -- >> > Massimo >> > http://meridio.blogspot.com >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > Igor Drobiazko > http://tapestry5.de > -- Andreas Andreou - [email protected] - http://blog.andyhot.gr Tapestry PMC / Tacos developer Open Source / JEE Consulting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
