https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #17 from Christopher Schultz ---
Fair enough, but if we are going to try to squeeze as much performance out of
this, then the correct process is with delegated dispatch:
enum Scope {
applicationScope(0) {
public Object
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #16 from Anurag Dubey ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #14)
> The fromLookupAndSwitch technique seems to be implemented in an awkward way.
> Why bother converting from String -> Enum and then using
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #15 from Christopher Schultz ---
... also what about Scope.valueOf(scopeName) and then you don't have to
implement your own map? It's possible that a manually-constructed Map would be
faster than the default mapping provided
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Schultz ---
The fromLookupAndSwitch technique seems to be implemented in an awkward way.
Why bother converting from String -> Enum and then using a switch on the enum,
instead of just (a) implement
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #13 from Anurag Dubey ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #11)
> (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #8)
> > The alternative approach is not faster. The test that showed it was was not
> > a fair test. I w
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #12 from Anurag Dubey ---
Created attachment 39051
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39051=edit
Alternative enum lookup approach JMH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #11 from Mark Thomas ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #8)
> The alternative approach is not faster. The test that showed it was was not
> a fair test. I will be applying a variation of the original patch.
To be
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Schultz ---
This test seems to show that there is indeed a speed improvement by using a
switch statement instead of a binary search, somewhere in the 30% range, and it
seems consistent. I didn't get the kind
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Schultz ---
Created attachment 39050
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39050=edit
JMH test to compare binarySearch to switch(scope)
# JMH version: 1.37
# VM version: JDK 21, OpenJDK 64-
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #8 from Mark Thomas ---
The alternative approach is not faster. The test that showed it was was not a
fair test. I will be applying a variation of the original patch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66841
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nils.ko...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66875
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67472
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #7 from Anurag Dubey ---
Hey Christopher Schultz, can you help out with the Pull Request i raised.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67472
Bug ID: 67472
Summary: CorsFilter erroneously adds CORS headers in responses
to Non-CORS requests
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
Status
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
--- Comment #9 from Mark Thomas ---
Ping. It has been two months. This is heading towards being closed as
WORKSFORME.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66706
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
I've applied the fix but I am leaving this issue open for now as I want to take
a further a look at the error handling.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67376
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
OS
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67370
--- Comment #2 from Mark Thomas ---
*** Bug 67376 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67376
Bug ID: 67376
Summary: isapi Redirector fails to connect tomcat 9.0.78
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.78
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: blocker
Priority
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67370
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67370
Bug ID: 67370
Summary: isapi Redirector fails to connect tomcat 9.0.78
Product: Tomcat Connectors
Version: 1.2.48
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: blocker
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62814
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Schultz ---
Yes, this was absolutely being left open for a new contributor to get involved
with some easy work.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62814
--- Comment #2 from Han Li ---
(In reply to yokeshwaranVK from comment #1)
> Is anyone already working on this? If not, I like to take this up.
Not yet. PR welcome ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62814
--- Comment #1 from yokeshwaranVK ---
Hi, Im interested in working on this Bug 62814. I understand the issue, I can
make the updates to the documentation and sample configuration files to
incorporate the human-readable names for the cluster
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64570
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Ronald from comment #0)
> Created attachment 37344 [details]
> Packet capturing using wireshark
>
> I think I found a bug in the Tomcat JDBC Pool.
>
> If I
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66684
--- Comment #14 from DigitalCat ---
This is client certificates, and we set clientAuth=true,
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66684
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|REOPENED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67300
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Suspected HTTP request |HTTP pipelining mistaken
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67300
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66684
--- Comment #12 from DigitalCat ---
Creating a Certificate
1. Generate a certificate private key file and save it as server.key. The 3des
algorithm is used. The key length is 2048 bytes.
openssl genrsa -des3 -out server.key 2048
2. Generate
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66684
--- Comment #11 from DigitalCat ---
Configure crlFile="server.crl" in the server.xml file.
Use the
curl -ivk --cert server.crt --key server.key -X GET 'https://XX:8542' is
used to check the certificate status. If you need to us
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66684
DigitalCat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67300
Bug ID: 67300
Summary: Suspected HTTP request smuggling vulnerability
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.75
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67293
Bug ID: 67293
Summary: WsRemoteEndpointImplBase throws IllegalStateException:
WebSocket session has been closed
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: 10.1.11
Hardware: PC
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #6 from John Engebretson ---
Anurag's solution is clearly faster than mine, I like it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #5 from Anurag Dubey ---
Create Pull Request for the proposed change, have also shared the performance
comparison for Old vs Switch implementation vs Hashmap implementation -
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/666
--
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
--- Comment #4 from Han Li ---
It can be reproduced. From my debug observations, it turns out that it's
ultimately due to the change of
`org.apache.coyote.AsyncStateMachine#asyncError` (Maybe not final reason).
Since I'm not very familiar
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
--- Comment #3 from brigh...@toss.im ---
I did not use HTTP2.
This issue occurred when setting up SSE (Server-Sent Events), and it's expected
that this could always happen when using an asynchronous servlet.
I'm building a server using
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--- Comment #2 from Mark
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
Are you using HTTP/2 for these requests? I'm guessing not but just wanted to
check.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
bclozel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bclo...@vmware.com
--
You are receiving
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
brigh...@toss.im changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
Hardware|PC
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67235
Bug ID: 67235
Summary: NPE (NullPointerException) occurs in
AsyncContextImpl.decrementInProgressAsyncCount after
version 10.1.12.
Product: Tomcat 10
Version
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #32 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Rainer Jung from comment #31)
> I checked the libtool code. It provides the option -export-symbols-regexp,
> which was suggested and which I know committed, and it also provides
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #31 from Rainer Jung ---
I checked the libtool code. It provides the option -export-symbols-regexp,
which was suggested and which I know committed, and it also provides
-export-symbols with a file name containing the symbols
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #30 from Mark Thomas ---
Sounds good to me. Tx.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #29 from Rainer Jung ---
I don't have a solution ready in the direction that Michael mentions. Because
we don't call a linker directly and we don't want to. Linker flags are not
standardized. That's one reason for using libtool
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690
--- Comment #26 from noodles ---
Tomcat version is 9.0.80;jdk version is 1.8.0_371
also using http/2, have change to encounter this error
```
I/O error while reading input message; nested exception
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690
noodles changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #28 from Mark Thomas ---
Rainer, do you have a timescale in mind for applying the proposed patch or a
variation? I'm planning on a mod_jk tag and release soon - hopefully this week.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38503|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65901
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67198
--- Comment #1 from Robert Rodewald ---
The if condition should probably be:
protocol.getTomcatAuthentication() && !protocol.getTomcatAuthorization()
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67198
Bug ID: 67198
Summary: AuthType not set if tomcatAuthentication is set to
true or left empty
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.79
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64353
--- Comment #1 from Bhavesh ---
Based on the Discussion
(https://www.mail-archive.com/users@tomcat.apache.org/msg142103.html) with
Mark, Please add the ability to get the SNI name used by TLS. For each request,
this will give the ability
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #27 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Josef Čejka from comment #21)
> Created attachment 38538 [details]
> Limit mod_jk.so exported symbols to "jk_module" only.
>
> I found the real culprit. Please ig
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #26 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Rainer Jung from comment #25)
> Not sure how highly nonportable, at least it uses libtool.
>
> Attributes are often used in GCC style. Do you have a concrete suggestion
> how
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
--- Comment #13 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #12)
> Maybe this listener should receive a reload interface will will decide
> whether the file needs to be reloaded or not? We can provide a defaul
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
--- Comment #12 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #8)
> I've been discussing this with the users recently and came up with the
> following approach.
>
> - Lifecycle listener that ships with Tomcat
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
--- Comment #11 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #8)
> I've been discussing this with the users recently and came up with the
> following approach.
>
> - Lifecycle listener that ships with Tomcat
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
--- Comment #10 from Mark Thomas ---
Not every key/cert is defined by a file.
At least one cloud provider (Azure) has a JCA provider that enables Java apps
to access keys in the cloud provided vault without any reference to a file on
the file
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67065
--- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas ---
Same problem. The only values that allow binding of multiple addresses are "::"
and "0.0.0.0". Anything else needs to be done individually.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
Anurag Dubey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anura...@amazon.com
--
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67065
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Schultz ---
Aha. What if the enhancement request were to be re-worded to be "use ::1 as an
alias for both ::1 and 127.0.0.1 as appropriate"? Instead of "all local
addresses" which may b
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #4 from John Engebretson ---
Created attachment 38938
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38938=edit
decompiled reproducer
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #3 from John Engebretson ---
I used javap to examine the bytecode of the reproducer - the full output is
attached but the critical portion is below. In short, it hashes each constant
and switches based on that hash
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65770
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #8)
> I've been discussing this with the users recently and came up with the
> following approach.
>
> - Lifecycle listener that ships with Tomcat
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67065
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
:: and 0.0.0.0 are special cases for "all addresses". There is no equivalent
for "all local addresses"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67065
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Schultz ---
:/
The "address" attribute for the AJP connector is documented[1] to have this
behavior for the Java-based connectors. Is the documentation wrong, there, or
it indeed possible to bind to
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Schultz ---
I haven't studied what the Java compiler does with switch(String) statements,
but I believe that numeric-based switch statements have two flavors: lookup vs
table. One of them is faster but is only
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56166
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
1201 - 1300 of 47175 matches
Mail list logo
