yep, I'll get this one in
Haroon Rafique wrote:
On Apr 6 at 9:54am, HR=>Haroon Rafique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HR> On Mar 22 at 3:04pm, FHDL=>Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
HR>
HR> FH> patch looks good to me, +1,
HR> FH> if no objections arise, then I can submit, we'l
On Apr 6 at 9:54am, HR=>Haroon Rafique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HR> On Mar 22 at 3:04pm, FHDL=>Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
HR>
HR> FH> patch looks good to me, +1,
HR> FH> if no objections arise, then I can submit, we'll wait until end of week.
HR> FH> Filip
HR> FH>
HR>
On Mar 22 at 3:04pm, FHDL=>Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FH> patch looks good to me, +1,
FH> if no objections arise, then I can submit, we'll wait until end of week.
FH> Filip
FH>
FH> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17944
FH>
Any status on committing the
Yeah, new patch looks good. I'd add a logging statement to the simple
stack trace so that people looking at the log can have a hint if this
error actually occurs.
Yoav
On 3/22/06, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> patch looks good to me, +1,
> if no objections arise, then I ca
patch looks good to me, +1,
if no objections arise, then I can submit, we'll wait until end of week.
Filip
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17944
Haroon Rafique wrote:
On Today at 2:47pm, HR=>Haroon Rafique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HR>
HR> Patch 17943 submitted on bugz
On Today at 2:47pm, HR=>Haroon Rafique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HR>
HR> Patch 17943 submitted on bugzilla 36847.
That should read Patch 17944. My mistake.
--
Haroon Rafique
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAI
On Today at 1:07pm, FHDL=>Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FHDL>
FHDL> exactly, this or a better fix: do this check inside the copy method.
FHDL>
FHDL> BASE vs HOME was just an example of a scenario that you didn't think
FHDL> about, there are many more. so a patch should not
Haroon Rafique wrote:
Replace:
copy(localWar, new File(getAppBase(), basename + ".war"));
with:
File secondCopy = new File(getAppBase(), basename + ".war");
if( !localWar.getCanonicalPath().equals(secondCopy.getCanonicalPath()) ) {
copy(localWar, secondCopy);
}
exactly, this or a be
Hola,
> As you can clearly see, BASE and HOME are different (and before you ask,
> neither one of them is a symlink :-))
>
> So, I modified ManagerServlet to show some debug output before the 1st
> copy, inserted a Thread.sleep() in the middle and some more debug output
> before the 2nd copy. Here
On Today at 12:11pm, YS=>Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
YS> [..snip..]
YS>
YS> If you want to submit a more precise patch, i.e. one that checks for
YS> the tag usage and then only circumvents copies if the two files are
YS> indeed the same exact path (taking symlinks and catalina_base
On Today at 12:11pm, YS=>Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
YS> [..snip..]
YS>
YS> You can call it paranoia if you wish, but I prefer caution. I'm not
YS> about to go remove a line code in an important component that we know
YS> is used in several paths through the code (corresponding to
Hola,
> False information??? you guys are pretty paranoid. I explained clearly
> that /www/tomcat is a symlink to /www/apache-tomcat-5.5.16.
You can call it paranoia if you wish, but I prefer caution. I'm not
about to go remove a line code in an important component that we know
is used in severa
On Today at 10:45am, FHDL=>Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FHDL> There are scenarios where CATALINA_BASE is different from
FHDL> CATALINA_HOME, and not different as in symlinked, different as in
FHDL> two different directories.
FHDL>
Thanks, now I'm beginning to understand t
that doesn't change the flaw of the patch, if there are scenarios where
the paths indeed are different, then you need to answer the following
questions:
1. What are those scenarios
2. And is the code correct in those scenarios
otherwise, I would change your patch to just fix the copy method, t
On Today at 10:15am, YS=>Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
YS> Hola,
YS>
YS>
Hi,
YS>
YS> [..snip..]
YS>
YS> How would this be different in the case where CATALINA_BASE is not the
YS> same as CATALINA_HOME?
YS>
I don't know. My guess would be that CATALINA_BASE would contain the
up
On Today at 9:29am, FHDL=>Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FHDL> Haroon Rafique wrote:
FHDL> >/www/apache-tomcat-5.5.16/webapps/sws.war
FHDL> >/www/tomcat/webapps/sws.war
FHDL>
FHDL> this would turn my vote into -1, based on false information provided
FHDL> earlier.
FHDL> That s
Haroon Rafique wrote:
/www/apache-tomcat-5.5.16/webapps/sws.war
/www/tomcat/webapps/sws.war
this would turn my vote into -1, based on false information provided
earlier.
That should be explanation enough.
Haroon, you'd need to provide a more solid test case, if the paths
indeed are differen
Hola,
> Gotta be careful here. When I said the 2 paths are same, I generalized a
> little bit. The two paths are almost the same. They are:
>
> /www/apache-tomcat-5.5.16/webapps/sws.war
> /www/tomcat/webapps/sws.war
>
> One of them involves a symlink. They are the same as long as you consider
> t
On Today at 11:06am, RM=>Reinhard Moosauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RM> Hi Filip, Haroon,
RM>
RM> as far as I understand, the problem is a copy operation which copies one
file
RM> on itself.
RM> Haroon showed that this is happing in his case.
RM> Unfortunately, it it not proved that this is h
Hi Filip, Haroon,
as far as I understand, the problem is a copy operation which copies one file
on itself.
Haroon showed that this is happing in his case.
Unfortunately, it it not proved that this is happening in all cases.
Furthermore, the removal of the second copy operation could still cause
aah got it, in that case,
+1
to get this fixed,
will wait a day or two, if no minus one votes come up, I'll apply it for
you, just remind me :)
Filip
Haroon Rafique wrote:
On Today at 4:02pm, FHDL=>Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FHDL> Question, if you remove the lines
On Today at 4:02pm, FHDL=>Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FHDL> Question, if you remove the lines you mentioned, does the
FHDL> application get deployed in your local instance, the one where the
FHDL> manager servlet runs? Cause the line that is removed is where the
FHDL> war
Question, if you remove the lines you mentioned, does the application
get deployed in your local instance, the one where the manager servlet
runs? Cause the line that is removed is where the war is copied to the
appbase of the host.
I haven't had time to run through this patch, but there shoul
Hi Yoav,
Thanks for responding. Please see my replies below:
On Today at 11:26am, YS=>Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
YS> Hi,
YS> The reason your patch hasn't been applied yet (or at least, the reason
YS> I haven't applied it yet, and I have looked at it once your twice) is
YS> that I
Hi,
The reason your patch hasn't been applied yet (or at least, the reason
I haven't applied it yet, and I have looked at it once your twice) is
that I'm sure the copy operation you remove is really redundant in all
cases.
The copy operation seems to have been added as part of revision 303270
comm
Dear Tomcat Developers,
I noticed that 5.5.16 has beeen voted as stable (no major issues) on March
15th. To deploy this release in production I will have to make a custom
distribution (yet once again). The reason for this is that a simple bug in
ManagerServlet (reported by myself) has still no
26 matches
Mail list logo
