Rainer Jung wrote:
+ if (aw->addr_sequence != aw->s->addr_sequence) {
+ aw->addr_sequence = aw->s->addr_sequence;
+ aw->host = aw->s->hostname;
Should we copy the string here?
Nope, the string is now in shared memory.
In theory we don't care about ajp->host
we just need that for a resolve, so actually
it will always point to the same shm address.
+ aw->port = aw->s->port;
+ if (!jk_resolve(aw->host, aw->port,&aw->worker_inet_addr,
+ aw->worker.we->pool, l)) {
+ if (is_error)
+ *is_error = JK_HTTP_SERVER_ERROR;
i think we should log an error in this case and maybe also reset the
data to the previous working set.
I don't like resetting to a previous version.
If it's bad, it's bad, just like with init.
+ if (!p->host) {
+ p->host = "undefined";
+ }
Guess we don't need that, because jk_get_worker_host() already gets a
default as the last argument (usually localhost).
True unless the previous host was null as well.
- jk_log(l, JK_LOG_ERROR,
- "invalid host and port %s %d",
- ((p->host == NULL) ? "NULL" : p->host), p->port);
It was an error log message, now it is debug. Why don't we simpy allow
ports below 1024?
We could. Nothing prevents that.
Regards
--
^(TM)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
