RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

A release will be nice since there were many bugs out since the 3.2.1 (jsp/jk) I think it will be time to make TC 3.2 release more frequently. +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMA

RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

IL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans > Bergsten > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 2:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > Hans Bergsten wrote: > > > > "Ignacio J. Ortega" wrote: > >

Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

Hans Bergsten wrote: > > "Ignacio J. Ortega" wrote: > > > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 oe 3 weeks > > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 #653 #513 , > > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i w

Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

"Ignacio J. Ortega" wrote: > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 oe 3 weeks > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 #653 #513 , > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i will revise > BugRat to close related

Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.

There have been some pretty major bugs fixed in the mod_jk / ajp13 world. The broken File Upload problem, which people repost as a bug pretty often, and a load-balancing bug, which also seems to cause a lot of pain. Just to factor that into whatever else has been fixed... -Dan > Glenn (and o

RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

nal Message- > From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:21 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > So you cant found a buggy behavior, it's sol

RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

J. Ortega > -Mensaje original- > De: Marc Saegesser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 15:12 > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Asunto: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > I cvsup and build from source se

RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

; Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:03 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 oe 3 weeks > ago , that seems to resolve t

RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

ready resolved.. Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega > -Mensaje original- > De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Hans > Bergsten > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 8:46 > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Asunto: Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Rep

Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

Marc Saegesser wrote: > > Regarding BugReport #744. I've been trying to duplicate it on my Win2000 > system and haven't had any luck. I always get back the executed page. Has > anyone else been able to duplicate the problem behavior? I actually tested it today (on a Red Hat 7 system, but I do

RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

ease to bed and there won't be a need for a 3.2.3. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans > Bergsten > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Repor

Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]

"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote: > > Glenn Nielsen wrote: > > > I stand corrected. > > > > The below problem was a bug in Tomcat. Wrapping the RequestDispatcher > > forward() and include() methods with a doPrivileged() if a SecurityManager > > is being used fixed the problem. When Tomcat 3.2.2 is

Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.

Craig, Bug fixes for use of the Java SecurityManager are done and working well. I do want to add another doc for setting up the SecurityManager when using MS Windows OS's. Glenn "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote: > > Glenn Nielsen wrote: > > > I stand corrected. > > > > The below problem was a bug

RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 Was (BugRat Report #690 has been filed.)

> Glenn (and others), > > Have we accumulated enough bug fixes where it's worth > creating a 3.2.2 release, or are there more issues that should be > dealt with first? > Hi Craig, I'm +1 for 3.2.2. The UnavailableException handling in 3.2.1 is still not quite right in Tomcat 3.2. I have a pa

Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.

I stand corrected. The below problem was a bug in Tomcat. Wrapping the RequestDispatcher forward() and include() methods with a doPrivileged() if a SecurityManager is being used fixed the problem. When Tomcat 3.2.2 is released you will no longer need to edit the jre/lib/security/java.security f

Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.

This isn't a Tomcat bug, its the way security works (whether correct or not). Perhaps this should be sent in as a Java bug report to Sun. This is documented in tomcat-security.html, you have to comment out the line: package.access=sun. in your $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/security/java.security file. B

BugRat Report #690 has been filed.

Bug report #690 has just been filed. You can view the report at the following URL: REPORT #690 Details. Project: Tomcat Category: Bug Report SubCategory: New Bug Report Class: swbug State: received Priority: high Severity: serious Co