Re: Change process (Was: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?)
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 20:37 +, Mark Thomas wrote: > I doubt there has been see-sawing. 4.1.x and 5.x have been developed > in parallel so it is more likely that the change was made on the 4.1.x > and the 5.0.x branch at roughly the same time although I haven't been > back through the SVN logs to confirm this. I hadn't considered this (in retrospect, obvious) possibility. Thanks. > As to the why, searching the archives for "serialize principal" turned > up this thread: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=107841409104907&w=2 Interesting. I had been searching Google which, bizarely, was not (and is not) turning that thread up. The next poster in that thread is jfarcand himself, so you've given me someone to ask. Many thanks. - Raz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change process (Was: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?)
once more: please unsubscribe! Thanks - Original Message From: Roland Turner (Apache) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: dev@tomcat.apache.org Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:45:08 PM Subject: Change process (Was: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?) Hi all. Last week I posted the question below. It appears from the (near) complete silence that followed that no-one knows. So, my new question is about tomcat's change process. I've not submitted code to tomcat before, so don't really where to start. Is simply posting a patch to this list an appropriate place to start? - Raz On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:41 +, Roland Turner (Apache) wrote: > I note that StandardSession has notes on the authType and principal > indicating that they are not included in the serialised form of the > object, but no explanation of this choice is obvious. I also have the > impression that there's some see-sawing on this; the limitation is > present in 4.1.31 and 5.0.30, but some Googling shows this up in the > 5.0.20 changelog: > > Avoid serializing Subject/Principal when persisting the session > (jfarcand) > > Can someone explain why (or point me at an existing explanation that > I've missed)? > > Thanks. > > - Raz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change process (Was: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?)
Roland Turner (Apache) wrote: > Hi all. > > Last week I posted the question below. It appears from the (near) > complete silence that followed that no-one knows. So, my new question is > about tomcat's change process. I've not submitted code to tomcat before, > so don't really where to start. Is simply posting a patch to this list > an appropriate place to start? > > - Raz > > On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:41 +, Roland Turner (Apache) wrote: > >>I note that StandardSession has notes on the authType and principal >>indicating that they are not included in the serialised form of the >>object, but no explanation of this choice is obvious. I also have the >>impression that there's some see-sawing on this; the limitation is >>present in 4.1.31 and 5.0.30, but some Googling shows this up in the >>5.0.20 changelog: >> >>Avoid serializing Subject/Principal when persisting the session >>(jfarcand) I doubt there has been see-sawing. 4.1.x and 5.x have been developed in parallel so it is more likely that the change was made on the 4.1.x and the 5.0.x branch at roughly the same time although I haven't been back through the SVN logs to confirm this. As to the why, searching the archives for "serialize principal" turned up this thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-dev&m=107841409104907&w=2 Not a complete explanation, but a start. Maybe some further digging in the archives would turn up the answer you are looking for. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change process (Was: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?)
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 15:47 +0100, Leon Rosenberg wrote: > Opening a bugzilla ticket (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/) and > attaching a patch there is surely the first step to take :-) Ah, good idea. Thanks. Now, to work up that patch... - Raz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change process (Was: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?)
Opening a bugzilla ticket (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/) and attaching a patch there is surely the first step to take :-) regards Leon On 2/26/06, Roland Turner (Apache) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all. > > Last week I posted the question below. It appears from the (near) > complete silence that followed that no-one knows. So, my new question is > about tomcat's change process. I've not submitted code to tomcat before, > so don't really where to start. Is simply posting a patch to this list > an appropriate place to start? > > - Raz > > On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:41 +, Roland Turner (Apache) wrote: > > I note that StandardSession has notes on the authType and principal > > indicating that they are not included in the serialised form of the > > object, but no explanation of this choice is obvious. I also have the > > impression that there's some see-sawing on this; the limitation is > > present in 4.1.31 and 5.0.30, but some Googling shows this up in the > > 5.0.20 changelog: > > > > Avoid serializing Subject/Principal when persisting the session > > (jfarcand) > > > > Can someone explain why (or point me at an existing explanation that > > I've missed)? > > > > Thanks. > > > > - Raz > > > - > 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]
Change process (Was: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?)
Hi all. Last week I posted the question below. It appears from the (near) complete silence that followed that no-one knows. So, my new question is about tomcat's change process. I've not submitted code to tomcat before, so don't really where to start. Is simply posting a patch to this list an appropriate place to start? - Raz On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:41 +, Roland Turner (Apache) wrote: > I note that StandardSession has notes on the authType and principal > indicating that they are not included in the serialised form of the > object, but no explanation of this choice is obvious. I also have the > impression that there's some see-sawing on this; the limitation is > present in 4.1.31 and 5.0.30, but some Googling shows this up in the > 5.0.20 changelog: > > Avoid serializing Subject/Principal when persisting the session > (jfarcand) > > Can someone explain why (or point me at an existing explanation that > I've missed)? > > Thanks. > > - Raz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?
On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 23:33 -0800, Marc de Klerk wrote: > I must be subscribed there by mistake... It would be great if I was > unsubscribed. Fair enough. Instructions for doing so appear, as with most mailing list email nowadays, at the bottom of each article. From your own reply: > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (N.B. It is unlikely that the list administrator is actually subscribed to the list, so there is little point posting requests for unsubscription to the list itself.) - Raz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?
Thanks for your reply, I must be subscribed there by mistake... It would be great if I was unsubscribed. Thanks, Marc - Original Message From: Roland Turner (Apache) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Marc de Klerk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 9:25:15 PM Subject: Re: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal? Hi Marc, On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 10:05 -0800, Marc de Klerk wrote: > is this spam or can you guys take me out of the mailing list? I'm puzzled by your reply. - Are you unaware that you're subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Given that it averages ~20 messages a day, I assume that you cannot possibly be unaware of your subscription to it.) or - Do you feel that questions about the innards of Tomcat's source code are out of place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Something else? - Raz > - Original Message > From: Roland Turner (Apache) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: dev@tomcat.apache.org > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:41:56 PM > Subject: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal? > > I note that StandardSession has notes on the authType and principal > indicating that they are not included in the serialised form of the > object, but no explanation of this choice is obvious. I also have the > impression that there's some see-sawing on this; the limitation is > present in 4.1.31 and 5.0.30, but some Googling shows this up in the > 5.0.20 changelog: > > Avoid serializing Subject/Principal when persisting the session > (jfarcand) > > Can someone explain why (or point me at an existing explanation that > I've missed)? > > Thanks. > > - Raz > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
Re: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?
is this spam or can you guys take me out of the mailing list? - Original Message From: Roland Turner (Apache) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: dev@tomcat.apache.org Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:41:56 PM Subject: Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal? I note that StandardSession has notes on the authType and principal indicating that they are not included in the serialised form of the object, but no explanation of this choice is obvious. I also have the impression that there's some see-sawing on this; the limitation is present in 4.1.31 and 5.0.30, but some Googling shows this up in the 5.0.20 changelog: Avoid serializing Subject/Principal when persisting the session (jfarcand) Can someone explain why (or point me at an existing explanation that I've missed)? Thanks. - Raz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Persistent storage of sessions, why no Principal?
I note that StandardSession has notes on the authType and principal indicating that they are not included in the serialised form of the object, but no explanation of this choice is obvious. I also have the impression that there's some see-sawing on this; the limitation is present in 4.1.31 and 5.0.30, but some Googling shows this up in the 5.0.20 changelog: Avoid serializing Subject/Principal when persisting the session (jfarcand) Can someone explain why (or point me at an existing explanation that I've missed)? Thanks. - Raz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
