On 25.02.2009 13:44, Mladen Turk wrote:
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.
I didn't yet go through all the address changes in detail, but I somehow
like the idea, that the worker itself represents the data that is used
for forwarding, and the shm represents the most recent status worker
changes. Of course we try to keep the time gap between the two as small
as possible, but I think it would be cleaner to keep the two things apart.
What do you think?
Concerning host vs. hostname: I would prefer to keep the variable names
the same. I can do the change. Do you prefer host in both cases, or
hostname? I think host makes somes sense, because it reflects the
workers.properties attribute.
+ 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.
Hmm, but that means any typo when submitting the status form will break
the application. Of course we can't fix this in any case, but at least
if the address doesn't resolve, we could. Maybe we should add a
resolution test when the form gets submitted, and if the address doesn't
resolve, we immediately return an error message in the status worker.
Are you OK with that? I would add it then. It is kind of validation of
form input data.
In any case a log message (error) is needed, because the problem is fatal.
+ 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.
the code at the moment sets it either to AJP13_DEF_HOST (=localhost) or
to AJP14_DEF_HOST (=localhost) or jumps out of the function before
reaching the above lines.
- 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.
Any idea, why this port limit was chosen? What's bad about allowing to
connect to a privileged port?
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
