Fortunately, that's what list archives are for :) I see your post, I'll
reply on the list shortly.
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
On Mon, August 1, 2005 10:03 am, Tamas Szabo said:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>
>>No problem a
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
No problem at all, that's what the list is for :)
Woo-hoo, first subscriber (besides me)! :)
Too bad there's no prize :)
Oh wait, now that's embarassing... I wasn't subscribed to my own list! D'oh!
To tell you the true I was afraid of this... :-DDD
I thougth tha
No problem at all, that's what the list is for :)
Woo-hoo, first subscriber (besides me)! :)
Too bad there's no prize :)
Oh wait, now that's embarassing... I wasn't subscribed to my own list! D'oh!
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnyt
Hi Frank and Rick,
I've just subscribed to the JWP mailing list.
If it's ok with you I will post messages related to this filters there...
Tamas
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
On Fri, July 29, 2005 12:34 am, Tamas Szabo said:
Did you made the modification I suggested?
I mean not continuing the
Another option other the solution below, that might even be easier to
implement... When sessionCreated is called it puts a simple flag in the
ServletContext. Then in the filter that checks to see if there is a
valid session, you check to see if this flag is in the Servlet context.
If it is not
Tamas Szabo wrote the following on 7/28/2005 11:56 PM:
However, I would like to have a general solution for this and since we
took the time to think it over
we could have this code somewhere so it will be reusable in the future.
Well, if we want a general solution that 'should' truly work, th
On Fri, July 29, 2005 12:34 am, Tamas Szabo said:
> Did you made the modification I suggested?
> I mean not continuing the chain if a sessionCount = MAX_SESSIONS.
> Or you didn't find that a good idea?
I haven't yet, although I agree with you that it is a good idea... the
thing I'm stuggling with
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Tamas Szabo wrote:
For example Frank's JWP would be a great place to include these
filters, if he accepted to include
them in his project.
I would absolutely accept them, so long as they work :) And frankly,
right now I'm trying to figure out why my formerly work
Tamas Szabo wrote:
For example Frank's JWP would be a great place to include these filters,
if he accepted to include
them in his project.
I would absolutely accept them, so long as they work :) And frankly,
right now I'm trying to figure out why my formerly working version of
the session l
Hi Rick,
That would probably be a good idea to use two filters vs doing it all
in one. Although it could also be nice to see all that happens for
each request by looking in just one filter vs two.
I like this idea because in my opinion filters should do small tasks.
This way they can be use
Hello,
I cannon run an application
The error that I get when i asm going to run the
apllication is
type Status report
message Servlet action is currently unavailable
description The requested service (Servlet action is
currently unavailable) is not currently available.
It doesn{to procees my t
Tamas Szabo wrote the following on 7/28/2005 12:51 PM:
Could you clear this situation for me:
User A is using the app, then his session expires.
User B starts to use the app.
User A comes back and want to access a page in the app. Remember that
his session is expired and User B is already usi
Hi Rick,
It's past midnight here so I'll check the code tomorrow. A few questions
though...
1) For one, the business requirement created a bit more complication
in the filter. For example a check for the session timing out has to
take place on all pages except for (index.jsp/login/logout/app
Hi again,
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Yes, I think what you caught yourself is what I was driving towards :)
Just for comparisons' sake, here's the filter and listener I came up with
to deal with this (this is condensed for space, just showing the main bits
of the puzzle)... this is what's going
Tamas Szabo wrote the following on 7/28/2005 2:24 AM:
Yes, the sessionCount is decremented everytime a session is destroyed
regardless of regular logoff, 'forced' logoff (max sessions in use) :-))
or timeout.
But that's what I wanted. Do you see a problem with it?
sessionCount is the number of
Yes, I think what you caught yourself is what I was driving towards :)
Just for comparisons' sake, here's the filter and listener I came up with
to deal with this (this is condensed for space, just showing the main bits
of the puzzle)... this is what's going in JWP (unless someone points out a
maj
Hi Frank,
Doesn't the sessionCount get decremented regardless of whether the
session is being destroyed as the result of a regular logoff or
timeout as well as if it was a rejected logon (i.e., max sessions
already in use)? I dealt with this problem in the code I'm adding to
Java Web Parts t
Tamas,
Doesn't the sessionCount get decremented regardless of whether the
session is being destroyed as the result of a regular logoff or timeout
as well as if it was a rejected logon (i.e., max sessions already in
use)? I dealt with this problem in the code I'm adding to Java Web
Parts tomo
One more thing I forgot in my earlier mail.
I used <[EMAIL PROTECTED] session="false" %> in appInUse.jsp
Tamas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Rick,
Rick Reumann wrote:
David G. Friedman wrote the following on 7/27/2005 12:35 AM:
When a session is created, have the SessionListener update a session
count.
If the count is 2 or more then call
SessionEvent.getSession().invalidate()
to cancel the session. Then the session listener's
I solved this problem using a combination of a filter and a
SessionListener... I forgot it at work unfortunately, but it will be
added to Java Web Parts tomorrow. It allows you to limit the number of
sessions to any specific number, and deals with the issue you mention
with regard to the diffe
David G. Friedman wrote the following on 7/27/2005 12:35 AM:
When a session is created, have the SessionListener update a session count.
If the count is 2 or more then call SessionEvent.getSession().invalidate()
to cancel the session. Then the session listener's Session destroy method
can decre
x27;s application, his implementation is
fine and he may change different pages depends on how many pages in that
application.
John H. Xu
- Original Message -
From: "John Henry Xu"
To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
Subject: Re: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one
John,
Well, I see our discussion varies on one key point: Rick specifically uses
the word "session" for his original requirement. The ideas put forth by
Tamas and myself try to limit the creation of session ID's on the server.
What you seem to put forth is limiting the server to answering one web
John Henry Xu wrote:
Here is Rick's original requirement,
I have an odd requirement where this internal application should
only be used by one valid user(one session) at a time. (The data
being worked with in the application would require so many locks
that's it just easier to restrict it to
r(one session) at a time. (The
data
> > >> being worked with in the application would require so many
locks
> > >> that's it just easier to restrict it to one user).
> > >>
>
> John H. Xu
>
> - Original Message -
> Fr
Hi,
Do you say that the first person who dropped connection still doing data
access on data sources (and two person using data the same time)? Rick's
original objective was trying to limit one person use data sources.
I said that more than one session will be alive on a server.
Rick said
- Original Message -
From: "Tamas Szabo"
To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
Subject: Re: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one user
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:08:36 +0800
>
> John Henry Xu wrote:
>
> > Here is Rick's original re
Thank you Tamas.
I had been having a difficult time try to express to Mr. Xu the position
that a session does not hold open a connection to the web server until that
session ends but that a session simply refers to a set of data stored on the
web server for a limited period of time between multipl
John Henry Xu wrote:
Here is Rick's original requirement,
I have an odd requirement where this internal application should
only be used by one valid user(one session) at a time. (The data
being worked with in the application would require so many locks
that's it just easier to restrict it t
s).
Tomcats can have multiple connectors. I don't see a problem here.
Again, I just try to see if configuration is possible for this
interesting problem. I think Rick's coding OK also.
Regards,
John H. Xu
- Original Message -----
From: "David G. Friedman"
To: "
months. :(
-Original Message-
From: Tamas Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:45 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one user
Hi,
>The theory is to override the PersistentManager with your own c
ons on various other methods plus his
original Filter/sessionListeners approach.
Regards,
David
-Original Message-
From: John Henry Xu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:52 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: RE: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one
h it uses maxThreads as
name.
John H. Xu
- Original Message -
From: "David G. Friedman"
To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
Subject: RE: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one user
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:39:57 -0400
>
> John,
>
&g
Setting debug="99" (doubtful it does anything different over a 9)
on a JSP containing the line
<%= request.getSession(true).getId() %>
resulted in output like this:
Jul 26, 2005 11:41:28 PM org.apache.catalina.session.ManagerBase log
INFO: readObject() loading session 3E8AA5B6D30D825FAD686145A
Hi,
The theory is to override the PersistentManager with your own class.
Theirs subclasses the PersistentManagerBase which subclasses ManagerBase.
Now inside ManagerBase it seems to create the sessions in the method
createSession(String). If you override that, you could count the sessions
and if
e creative thinker tonight
-Original Message-
From: Rick Reumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:11 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one user
David G. Friedman wrote the following on 7/26/2005 10:39 PM:
>
David G. Friedman wrote the following on 7/26/2005 10:39 PM:
John,
Aren't those for simultaneous threads for the webapp, not to limit total
sessions/session cookies? I thought that just mean that the jobs get queue
up and run one at a time in that webapp, i.e. with fewer threads. It
wouldn't
gt; What Application server are you using?
>
> John H. Xu
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rick Reumann"
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
> Subject: Re: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one user
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 2
given time.
Regards,
David
-Original Message-
From: John Henry Xu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:35 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one user
Rick,
In Tomcat, you can set minProcessors="1" maxPr
"
Subject: Re: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one user
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:11:38 -0400
>
> John Henry Xu wrote the following on 7/26/2005 9:56 PM:
> > Can you set maxprocess=1 in web application server configuration
file?
>
> I haven't seen
John Henry Xu wrote the following on 7/26/2005 9:56 PM:
Can you set maxprocess=1 in web application server configuration file?
I haven't seen that, but I would think there would/should be a way to
set up "max sessions" yet googling around hasn't helped. With a
combination of a filters and ses
Can you set maxprocess=1 in web application server configuration file?
John H. Xu
http://www.usanalyst.com
http://www.GetusJobs.com (The largest free job portal in North America)
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Reumann"
To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
Subject: probably a
Could we use a static variable to solve the problem?
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Reumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:06 PM
Subject: probably a cleaner way... testing for just one user
I have an odd requirement where this i
A cleaner way I'm finding is to compare the sessionID with one that I
put in application scope. Much better than the flag garbage below.
Rick Reumann wrote the following on 7/26/2005 5:06 PM:
I have an odd requirement where this internal application should only be
used by one valid user(one ses
45 matches
Mail list logo
