On 03/06/2015 20:50, Christopher Schultz wrote:
Bjørn,
On 6/3/15 2:52 PM, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
Just saw a discussion about Tomcat DBCP 8.0.18 issue, where Tomcat
JDBC pooling vs Commons DBCP 2 pooling was briefly discussed.. So
now I am a bit curious... I am using Tomcat JDBC, because I
Just saw a discussion about Tomcat DBCP 8.0.18 issue, where Tomcat JDBC pooling
vs Commons DBCP 2 pooling was briefly discussed..
So now I am a bit curious... I am using Tomcat JDBC, because I read somewhere
that this was better than DBCP (guess they were talking about DBCP 1
then). Does this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ray,
On 6/3/15 9:44 AM, Ray Holme wrote:
I'm curious as to why you are using hard links instead of
symlinks. If you copy a new file over a hard link, you un-couple
it from the rest of the series of hard links. If you do the same
with symlinks,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 6/3/15 3:53 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 03/06/2015 20:48, Christopher Schultz wrote:
snip/
I don't understand the underlying reasons why Tomcat treats
symlinks specially...
snip/
It is to do with case sensitivity on non case
Hmm, interesting... Thanks for explanation Mark!
2015-06-03 12:22 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 03/06/2015 07:24, Tweak Ronaldo wrote:
Thanks Mark, yes I have mixed together Tomcat JDBC 8 and DBCP 7, my bad.
Although I don't understand why Tomcat JDBC don't use DBCP as default
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Bjørn,
On 6/3/15 2:52 PM, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
Just saw a discussion about Tomcat DBCP 8.0.18 issue, where Tomcat
JDBC pooling vs Commons DBCP 2 pooling was briefly discussed.. So
now I am a bit curious... I am using Tomcat JDBC, because I
On 03/06/2015 20:48, Christopher Schultz wrote:
snip/
I don't
understand the underlying reasons why Tomcat treats symlinks
specially...
snip/
It is to do with case sensitivity on non case sensitive file systems.
The check we have to add on Windows to stop things like JSP source
disclosure
On 03/06/2015 07:24, Tweak Ronaldo wrote:
Thanks Mark, yes I have mixed together Tomcat JDBC 8 and DBCP 7, my bad.
Although I don't understand why Tomcat JDBC don't use DBCP as default
solution for connections pooling.
Tomcat does - and always has - used Commons DBCP for connection pooling
by
Thanks Mark, yes I have mixed together Tomcat JDBC 8 and DBCP 7, my bad.
Although I don't understand why Tomcat JDBC don't use DBCP as default
solution for connections pooling.
2015-06-02 16:59 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 01/06/2015 14:22, Tweak Ronaldo wrote:
Hello guys,
The Apache Tomcat team announces that support for Apache Tomcat 6.0.x
will end on 31 December 2016.
This means that after 31 December 2016:
- releases from the 6.0.x branch are highly unlikely
- bugs affecting only the 6.0.x branch will not be addressed
- security vulnerability reports will not
Mark, big thanks for a quick historical review, it was very intreresting!
I was thinking that tomcat-jdbc is something new, but wasn't sure about
project maintenance.
2015-06-03 12:22 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 03/06/2015 07:24, Tweak Ronaldo wrote:
Thanks Mark, yes I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ray,
On 6/2/15 6:42 PM, Ray Holme wrote:
I have not seen changes to the lib structures for any of the tomcat
releases I have used and that spans back 5 years or more (well OK,
at one point symbolic links worked, now they don't unless I change
Really? Tomcat 6.0 replaced the server/lib/, shared/lib/, and
common/lib/ directories in favor of a single, unified lib/ directory.
That doesn't strike you as an important change?
Again, you are right. Single is much better, but I still only needed one link
for the SQL jar and moving that to lib
13 matches
Mail list logo
