DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-05 17:16 --- Created an attachment (id=16599) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16599action=view) rebuilt jasper-compiler.jar Here is a rebuilt jasper-compiler.jar that incorporates my proposed patch. For anyone who needs a fix and doesn't want to download, patch, and rebuild. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-05 03:05 --- On access compilation and its friend the development mode - which you are using or you would not have this issue - should not be used in production By access compilation are you referring to the development=true mode which causes recompilation on every access? We rely on our JSP pages to be compiled when the date changes and the only *reliable* way to do this is to touch *all* JSP files whenever we change something. I suspect it is because of the problem Jonathon has pointed out. Unfortunately, this means the webapp is very slow after each deployment. If this problem won't be fixed, what is the recommended way to avoid recompiling all pages in a production environment? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 19:26 --- Another thing that currently compunds this issue is the fact that the zip file format used for .war files ignores timezone on datestamps. So for example, my file times are mountain standard and my server is in GMT. If I make a change to the .jsp after it is accessed on the server, unless it is 7 or 8 hours after, it won't take effect. And if the time change is in the reverse direction, the .jsp will be recompiled continuously for the duration of the difference. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 22:19 --- I took my Tomcat out of development mode, and verified this issue exists there as well. development=false uses the same, broken isOutDated check. On access compilation and its friend the development mode - which you are using or you would not have this issue - should not be used in production -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 07:59 --- (In reply to comment #9) The .jsp file date stamp doesn't have to go back in time for the isOutDated check to fail, it can and does fail in a more normal usage pattern. Here is a scenario that shows the problem: - I deploy version 1, the .jsp has time1 - I make version 2 of the .jsp at time2 - Visitor visits the site, and the .jsp is compiled at time3 - I deploy version2 - isOutDated returns false as time3 time2 Would setting the date stamp of the .java and .class files to the date stamp of the .jsp file, and changing the comparison from to != in the isOutDated check fix the problem sufficiently? Or are there negative side effects I haven't thought of? I am working on patching my Tomcat to do exactly as above, I would be happy to give it to someone for evaluation when its ready. As looked into in comment #6, this is not doable easily, which makes the few use cases which could benefit from this not worth it. Please try to read the report next time. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 17:32 --- Remy, With all due respect I did read the report fully and I believe the recommendation I made addressed comment #6. If you feel my recommendation isn't sufficient, please state why. The other point in my first comment was that this bug can manifest itself in ways more common than the original report, in fact that's why my colleague and I found it. I have patched and tested my local Tomcat, and am attaching the two files I modified for review. (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) The .jsp file date stamp doesn't have to go back in time for the isOutDated check to fail, it can and does fail in a more normal usage pattern. Here is a scenario that shows the problem: - I deploy version 1, the .jsp has time1 - I make version 2 of the .jsp at time2 - Visitor visits the site, and the .jsp is compiled at time3 - I deploy version2 - isOutDated returns false as time3 time2 Would setting the date stamp of the .java and .class files to the date stamp of the .jsp file, and changing the comparison from to != in the isOutDated check fix the problem sufficiently? Or are there negative side effects I haven't thought of? I am working on patching my Tomcat to do exactly as above, I would be happy to give it to someone for evaluation when its ready. As looked into in comment #6, this is not doable easily, which makes the few use cases which could benefit from this not worth it. Please try to read the report next time. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 17:35 --- Created an attachment (id=16489) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16489action=view) Changes to Compiler.java and JspCompilationContext.java to fix bug 33453 Modified Compiler.java isOutDated() method to use != instead of for datestamp comparison. Modified JspCompilationContext.java compile() method to set the datestamp of the generated .java and .class files to the datestamp of the source .jsp. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 18:23 --- Remy, I will keep re-opening this bug until you take the time to explain to me why I am wrong. Which even you can't, because I'm not. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 20:18 --- Sorry for letting you down, I was having dinner. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 21:05 --- Since when is it a good idea to *close* a bug that you can't think of how to fix offhand, and don't feel like fixing yourself? This behavior is infantile and is an embarassing contradiction to the spirit of the open source development model. And now you're refusing to look at a patch just to save face? This is really sad. I wonder how many other Tomcat bugs exist but were closed because somebody didn't want to think about them or try to resolve them. Maybe you ought to use the priority and target milestone features instead of pretending that Tomcat does the right thing because whatever it currently does defines what the right thing is. I'm not going to reopen this because I'm not wasting any more time on this little power game. There are competitors to Tomcat and this is just another reason to use them instead. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 21:45 --- Created an attachment (id=16492) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16492action=view) Changes to JspCompilationContext.java Sets the lastModified on the generated .java and .class files to the lastModified of the source .jsp -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #16489|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 21:46 --- Created an attachment (id=16493) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16493action=view) Change to Compiler.java Change the to != in the isOutDated method. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 22:00 --- As suggested by Rainer, I have submitted my recommended changes in patch form for easier review. Remy, I was also at lunch so unfortunately I was delayed in re-opening the bug, which I likewise apologize for. I accept your apology. I am considering creating a script to automate my re-opening of the bug. As a peace offering I am willing to automate your part, automatically changing the status to RESOLVED WONTFIX, just send me your bugzilla login and password. By the way, if you bothered to take the time to think about the problem, you would realize as I have that the current behavior is very broken. As I have stated before, not just for the original use case in the bug report, it affects every .jsp modification, without moving the timestamp backward whatsoever. This bug affects everyone, period. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 23:27 --- My instinct is that changing the true timestamp of generated files is going to cause other problems. I am very uneasy with a solution that means what a user sees (in terms of timestamps) isn't going to be what actually happened. It is also worth having a look at bug 23406. In that case timing resolutions to the nearest second were not sufficient to resolve the issue. Any patch for this issue should also address the issue in 23406. My preference would be for a patch that recorded, for each JSP, somthing that is guaranteed to change for all of the related use cases. Timestamp + file size should be OK, MD5 certainly would be. My general unease about changing file timestamps hasn't got to the point where I would -1 this patch but I haven't had time to reflect on this yet. In summary: - I agree this is a problem - I agree the right solution isn't going to be easy - I think we need a more robust solution that the current patch. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 23:33 --- (In reply to comment #19) In summary: - I agree this is a problem I disagree. - I agree the right solution isn't going to be easy I do not wish to find any solution to this non issue. The only problem is that people will have to use touch or similar in a few very select situations, which apparently is too difficult. - I think we need a more robust solution that the current patch. Yes, -1 for it. Obviously, anyone is free to waste his time on this trying to find an acceptable solution, but the said solution has better be trivial, otherwise it will get a -1 from me. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 23:43 --- Setting timestamp seems not a clean solution to me. API doc says, hat the time might be rounded, so even if we try to set the time to the same timestamp we get from the JSP, the resulting timestamp might differ and not be equal to the original time (Consider diffrent file system types etc.). I would also prefer a solution where information about the JSP is saved and later compared. Would JspServletWrapper be the right place to save the original JSP modification time? MD5 would be nice, but then md5 checksum would need to be recalculated on every JSP check with unchanged file time, so unfortunately not a rare case. I guess that's too bad for performance. Maybe timestamp and size would be enough, because both can be retrieved easy and efficiently, and if timestamp did not change, but content did change, it is very likely, that the file was in progress of being written to, so at least size should have changed. If we agree, that it's worth trying to make a patch to JspServletWrapper, I'll try to submit one tomorrow (not really for 5.5.12). One thing remains though: I'm not sure how to handle the case of included JSPs (dependecies). Maybe I'll find a solution by digging deeper into Jasper. One last word: I had customers having problems with both scenarios: rolling back file changes, but also distributing content with wrong timestamps (future time) and in consequence continuous recompilation for several minutes. Not trying to assume a simple time model seems to make jasper more robust. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 00:13 --- (In reply to comment #21) I would also prefer a solution where information about the JSP is saved and later compared. Would JspServletWrapper be the right place to save the original JSP modification time? Nope, people can restart the container. MD5 would be nice, but then md5 checksum would need to be recalculated on every JSP check with unchanged file time, so unfortunately not a rare case. I guess that's too bad for performance. Arg MD5. Maybe timestamp and size would be enough, because both can be retrieved easy and efficiently, and if timestamp did not change, but content did change, it is very likely, that the file was in progress of being written to, so at least size should have changed. This is simple, and maybe acceptable, but would make the cost of checking for recompilation (even) more expensive than it is right now. One last word: I had customers having problems with both scenarios: rolling back file changes, but also distributing content with wrong timestamps (future time) and in consequence continuous recompilation for several minutes. Not trying to assume a simple time model seems to make jasper more robust. On access compilation and its friend the development mode - which you are using or you would not have this issue - should not be used in production (the only reason why it is not as bad as it used to be is that I tweaked it do do only one check at most per page per time interval - obviously if there are 100 pages, my trick will not work that well). -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 00:32 --- You disagree because you don't fully understand the problem. If someone first visits your .jsp after your modification, but before redeployment, you will be hit by this bug. You will wonder why your change didn't take effect. It is not necessary for the timestamp to move backwards. You don't control when your .jsp is accessed. As your development/test servers will see different access than your production, you will encounter a production bug that you didn't see in your other environments. Or if you are load balanced you will encounter the bug on one machine but not another. Good luck debugging that when it happens to you. Using touch is not difficult, just add it to the documentation for JBoss and every other web server that to hot deploy, do the following: hot deploy, find the tmp directory where the war is unpacked, touch every .jsp file that changed. And do that atomically so that noone can visit the .jsp inbetween. The jasper code as is fails badly, my fix is trivial, is an improvement, but still not 100% correct and has the side effect of changing a couple timestamps. The only place I'm aware of in Jasper that uses those timestamps is the broken isOutDated logic. My fix doesn't handle dependencies correctly, and there is still the possibility the .jsp is visited in the same second / minute / whatever the OS granularity is as the modification. Another side effect of my fix is that every .jsp will be recompiled once after the fix is applied. Timestamp rounding by the filesystem is not an issue, the timestamp of the .jsp will be rounded the same way as the .class and .java files. Every OS will round timestamps in an internally consistent manner. If changing the timestamps of the .java and .class files is still deemed verboten, then I suggest copying the .jsp to the same temporary directory that the .java and .class files are generated in, and preserving its timestamp. Then timestamp, filesize, md5, even the exact contents of the file can be compared. Remy, I am using JBoss4.0.2, how should I be deploying .jsps to production to avoid this issue? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-23 01:01 --- For what it's worth: A few years ago we implemented the timestamp approach to this issue in the WebSphere Application Server JSP container at the request of a small number of customers - for whom it was critical. A generated classfiles is set to the timestamp of the source JSP file. The classfile is considered to be outdated when the two timestamps do not match. File size is not part of the equation. Tag files are handled the same way. The timestamp disconnect :) of classfiles vs. their actual compilation time rarely causes confusion among customers; it's a non-issue. We write compilation time/date and other information into the generated .java file, in a comment, so any confusion that might occur can be easily cleared up. The timestamp != strategy has worked well on Versions 4 through 6, on all platforms. Dependency tracking (static includes, TLDs, tag files) is easily managed. The race condition described in bug 23406 has never been reported. Timestamp rounding has never been an issue. Google for websphere jsp timestamp and you'll find some info about the implementation. Some things to consider if you all decide it's an appropriate change for Tomcat (this stuff is all documented and easily found on the web): When serving JSP sources from JARs, we use the timestamp of the JAR for the outdated check. Any expansion of WARs or other compressed artifacts with precompiled JSP classes must maintain timestamps (doh). There *will* be first-time recompilation cost to Tomcat users if this is implemented, as Jonathan mentioned. Some won't like it. Keeping data only in a runtime artifact like the servletwrapper won't work, as Remy stated. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-22 01:15 --- The .jsp file date stamp doesn't have to go back in time for the isOutDated check to fail, it can and does fail in a more normal usage pattern. Here is a scenario that shows the problem: - I deploy version 1, the .jsp has time1 - I make version 2 of the .jsp at time2 - Visitor visits the site, and the .jsp is compiled at time3 - I deploy version2 - isOutDated returns false as time3 time2 Would setting the date stamp of the .java and .class files to the date stamp of the .jsp file, and changing the comparison from to != in the isOutDated check fix the problem sufficiently? Or are there negative side effects I haven't thought of? I am working on patching my Tomcat to do exactly as above, I would be happy to give it to someone for evaluation when its ready. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-18 15:08 --- Feel free to reopen this when you have a patch ready for us to evaluate -- looking forward to it. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-08 22:55 --- Changes to a file that make the change timestamp older instead of newer seems like a special (if not outright wrong) use-case. I'm not sure Tomcat should worry about this at all. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-08 23:03 --- (In reply to comment #1) Changes to a file that make the change timestamp older instead of newer seems like a special (if not outright wrong) use-case. I don't agree that using version control is a special or wrong use case. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Example: 1) Check out a JSP file from VC and deploy it where Tomcat can see it 2) Access the JSP file via a web browser, so it gets compiled 3) Change it locally, deploy the changed version (newer timestamp) 4) Access it via a web browser; Tomcat correctly shows the updated version. 5) Revert to an older version from VC and deploy that. 6) Access it via a web browser; Tomcat ignores the changes and shows the output of a nonexistent JSP page -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|minor |enhancement --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-09 00:04 --- This is an enhancement at best. (That I would be -0 to) -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-09 00:46 --- Although not allowed to vote I have an opinion: The dynamic update feature for JSPs comes from the need to dynamically manage content without a heavy weight administrative action. But every now and then one has to roll back a change. With static content you would just put back the original files. It would be very nice, if it would work the same way with JSPs, especially because that's unsually the unplanned case (roll back) where you need to have a simple procedure. I know, you could touch the old file. Myself I always tell Sysadmins to make backup copies and roll back file changes with cp -p, so that the files keep their original timestamp, which is a nice low-level approximation of checksums. Any higher level tool (like CVS) will most liekely also roll back including file timestamps. There seems to be very little risk in the change and some not neglectable benefit. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-09 01:02 --- Please test this *really* well. Also, you should test with a similar change made to the dependent files near the end of the isOutDated method (otherwise, touch would still be required in some cases). -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-09 02:03 --- Thanks for your hint. I do like the use case, but I should have thought better about the implementation suggestion of Jamie. His idea to just compare for timestamps for not being equal will not work! In most cases the timestamps of the class files will of course be younger than the source file (source file has some old installation date but class file is only generated on first access). So this change would make the compiler compile on every test :( It would only work by saving the last JSP timestamp for any JSP and then comparing to the saved value insted of comparing to the timestamp of the generated files. I leave it up to Jamie to suggest a working patch - I don't knw enough about Jasper details. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33453] - Jasper should recompile JSP files whose datestamps change in either direction (not just newer)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33453 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-09 04:03 --- Fair enough; that's not the place to make that change. The servlet .class or .java file will be slightly newer than the JSP file. It's the JSP file's date that should be compared to the cached last-modified time, regardless of how many ms it took to get around to generating and compiling the actual servlet. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
