Hi Christopher,
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 7:28 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
snip
Should I report this problem somewhere, e.g. on the Apache Infra
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Preißer [mailto:kpreis...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:14 PM
To: 'Tomcat Users List'
Subject: RE: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
Hi Jeffrey,
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Janner [mailto:jeffrey.jan
-in
context paths
Hi Jeffrey,
-Original Message- From: Jeffrey Janner
[mailto:jeffrey.jan...@polydyne.com] Sent: Wednesday, November
13, 2013 5:14 PM To: 'Tomcat Users List' Subject: RE: [OT] RE:
Baked-in context paths
The thing is, the garbage characters at the end don't exist
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Preißer [mailto:kpreis...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 8:09 PM
To: 'Tomcat Users List'
Subject: RE: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
Hi Jeffrey,
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Janner [mailto:jeffrey.jan
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Preißer [mailto:kpreis...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:17 AM
To: 'Tomcat Users List'
Subject: RE: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Preißer [mailto:kpreis...@apache.org]
Sent
Hi Jeffrey,
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Janner [mailto:jeffrey.jan...@polydyne.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:14 PM
To: 'Tomcat Users List'
Subject: RE: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
The thing is, the garbage characters at the end don't exist in the email I
see
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Janner [mailto:jeffrey.jan...@polydyne.com]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 9:55 AM
To: 'Tomcat Users List'
Subject: RE: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net
Hi Jeffrey,
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Janner [mailto:jeffrey.jan...@polydyne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:22 PM
To: 'Tomcat Users List'
Subject: RE: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
I'm also using Outlook, but for me it only shows an empty email here.
If I open
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:07 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
Jeff,
On 11/7/13, 10:17 AM, Jeffrey Janner wrote:
-Original Message- From
-Original Message-
From: Leo Donahue - OETX [mailto:leodona...@mail.maricopa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 4:29 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: [OT] RE: Baked-in context paths
-Original Message-
From: Leo Donahue - OETX [mailto:leodona...@mail.maricopa.gov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Milo,
On 11/6/13, 5:22 PM, Milo Hyson wrote:
I wasn't trying to play games, I was trying to route HTTP
requests. Again, this is something I have done, without incident,
for many years. It's possible I've just been lucky, but it's also
possible
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Leo,
On 11/6/13, 6:06 PM, Leo Donahue - OETX wrote:
From: Leo Donahue - OETX [mailto:leodona...@mail.maricopa.gov]
Subject: RE: Baked-in context paths
I'm not convinced relative links are bad, nor that one should not
try to use them
paths
-Original Message- From: Leo Donahue - OETX
[mailto:leodona...@mail.maricopa.gov] Subject: RE: Baked-in
context paths
B�KK
KKCB�� [��X��ܚX�KK[XZ[
� \�\��][��X��ܚX�P �X�]
�\X�K�ܙ�B��܈Y][ۘ[��[X
On Nov 7, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Christopher Schultz ch...@christopherschultz.net
wrote:
The only way to reliably mutate context-paths during proxying is to
re-write the headers and content of the pages. It's miserable.
Perhaps YOUR experiences have been miserable, but clearly that's not the case
On Nov 7, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Christopher Schultz ch...@christopherschultz.net
wrote:
What I'm saying is that from a practical point of view, when writing
dynamic web applications, context-relative links are always the way to go.
I'm not sure how much more I can say on this topic and nobody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Milo,
On 11/7/13, 2:46 PM, Milo Hyson wrote:
On Nov 7, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Christopher Schultz
ch...@christopherschultz.net wrote:
The only way to reliably mutate context-paths during proxying is
to re-write the headers and content of the
On Nov 7, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Christopher Schultz ch...@christopherschultz.net
wrote:
But nobody in their right mind uses
../../../.. to get to the context-path (which, by definition is
relative to the host)... instead they use request.getContextPath() and
then tack-on a context-relative link
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Leo,
On 11/5/13, 4:35 PM, Leo Donahue - OETX wrote:
-Original Message- From: Leo Donahue - OETX
[mailto:leodona...@mail.maricopa.gov] Subject: RE: Baked-in
context paths
I will concede there are issues even in this example
So basically you're saying it's not that relative links are bad per se, it's
just that in some cases they can be tricky to get right?
- Milo Hyson
Chief Scientist
CyberLife Labs, Inc.
On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Christopher Schultz ch...@christopherschultz.net
wrote:
Any time dynamic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Milo,
On 11/6/13, 1:48 PM, Milo Hyson wrote:
On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Christopher Schultz
ch...@christopherschultz.net wrote:
Any time dynamic content is generated, there exists a great deal
of risk that relative URLs will make page links
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Re: Baked-in context paths
I'm arguing from a welf-contained web-app standpoint ... in order to get into
trouble with relative links.
Right.
And I thought the OP was asking whether relative URLS
I wasn't trying to play games, I was trying to route HTTP requests. Again,
this is something I have done, without incident, for many years. It's possible
I've just been lucky, but it's also possible this isn't as big of a deal as you
seem to think.
I often employ common header content as you
-Original Message-
From: Leo Donahue - OETX [mailto:leodona...@mail.maricopa.gov]
Subject: RE: Baked-in context paths
B�KK
KKCB�� [��X��ܚX�KK[XZ[
� \�\��][��X��ܚX�P �X�]
�\X�K�ܙ�B��܈Y][ۘ[��[X[� �K[XZ
From: Leo Donahue - OETX [mailto:leodona...@mail.maricopa.gov]
Subject: RE: Baked-in context paths
I'm not convinced relative links are bad, nor that one should not try to use
them because they are easy to get wrong.
From the spec: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt
In situations where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Milo,
On 11/5/13, 1:35 PM, Milo Hyson wrote:
As suggested, I'm bringing this issue to the list so that I might
understand the thinking behind an argued best practice. In
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734 it is
said that
-Original Message-
From: Milo Hyson [mailto:m...@cyberlifelabs.com]
Subject: Baked-in context paths
As suggested, I'm bringing this issue to the list so that I might understand
the
thinking behind an argued best practice. In
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734 it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Leo,
On 11/5/13, 2:23 PM, Leo Donahue - OETX wrote:
-Original Message- From: Milo Hyson
[mailto:m...@cyberlifelabs.com] Subject: Baked-in context paths
As suggested, I'm bringing this issue to the list so that I might
understand the
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Re: Baked-in context paths
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Leo,
I think it's worth pointing-out that the original discussion (at least from
BZ) was
about browser-facing links
-Original Message-
From: Leo Donahue - OETX [mailto:leodona...@mail.maricopa.gov]
Subject: RE: Baked-in context paths
I will concede there are issues even in this example. Such as the reference to
the /plannet/PlanNetGuide.pdf in the side_nav_left.xhtml of the oppositioncase
context
29 matches
Mail list logo
