However, it is the correct value to pass to Tomcat. Tomcat correctly uses
this value for getLocalPort. The value of getServerPort (which is the one
used for redirection) is taken from the Host header (as required by the 2.4
servlet spec).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle VanderBeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PATHCH] ./jk/native2/server/apache2/jk_service_apache2.c
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:08:48PM +0100, Günter Knauf wrote:
> Hi Henri,
> > Thanks to resubmit the latest patch for jk/jk2 on Apache 2 to see if
> > everybody agree
> ok.
> With APR 1.0 apr_sockaddr_port_get() was removed without replacement.
> I believe that the patch below is the correct replacement to archive
_same_ behaviour as with apr_sockaddr_port_get() before, and I tested that
it also works with APR 0.9.x (Apache 2.0.48 tested):
Please look at the bug 16901 again. This is the WRONG behavior. The
port that should be passed back to the tomcat layer isn't necessarily
the same as the port being listened on. For example, configuring Apache
httpd2 like this is perfectly legal:
Listen 8000
...
ServerName www.example.com:80
This sort of thing is frequently used by people with server farms behind
load balancers. This way they can run several httpd's on the same
machine on different ports, group them, use NAT, all kinds of stuff.
The point is: the port visible to the world is a configured value, not
one that should be inferred from the socket. Please look at the patch
on the bug again. It uses ap_get_server_port() to look up the
*configured* port of the server record. Note, this is "ap_" not "apr_".
The patch on the bug removes the dead "apr_" function you describe, but
replaces it with the correct way of looking up the server name and port:
by asking the httpd config functions.
Please re-read the bug, and look at the UseCanonicalName doc mentioned
therein.
> # patch for APR 1.0 compatiblity
> #
> --- jk_service_apache2.c.orig Tue Sep 30 18:16:14 2003
> +++ jk_service_apache2.c Wed Jan 21 17:43:14 2004
> @@ -343,7 +343,6 @@
> static int JK_METHOD jk2_init_ws_service(jk_env_t *env, jk_ws_service_t
*s,
> jk_worker_t *worker, void
*serverObj)
> {
> - apr_port_t port;
> char *ssl_temp = NULL;
> jk_workerEnv_t *workerEnv;
> request_rec *r=serverObj;
> @@ -377,8 +376,7 @@
> r->server->server_hostname);
>
> /* get the real port (otherwise redirect failed) */
> - apr_sockaddr_port_get(&port,r->connection->local_addr);
> - s->server_port = port;
> + s->server_port = r->connection->local_addr->port;
>
> s->server_software = (char *)ap_get_server_version();
>
> ===================================================================
> There's an outstanding patch in bugzilla:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=8969
>
> --- jk/native2/server/apache2/jk_service_apache2.c 30 Sep 2003
13:42:02 -00001.36
> +++ jk/native2/server/apache2/jk_service_apache2.c 7 Nov 2003
00:20:16 -0000
> @@ -343,7 +343,6 @@
> static int JK_METHOD jk2_init_ws_service(jk_env_t *env, jk_ws_service_t
*s,
> jk_worker_t *worker, void
*serverObj)
> {
> - apr_port_t port;
> char *ssl_temp = NULL;
> jk_workerEnv_t *workerEnv;
> request_rec *r=serverObj;
> @@ -373,12 +372,10 @@
> s->remote_addr = NULL_FOR_EMPTY(r->connection->remote_ip);
>
> /* get server name */
> - s->server_name= (char *)(r->hostname ? r->hostname :
> - r->server->server_hostname);
> + s->server_name= (char *)ap_get_server_name(r);
>
> /* get the real port (otherwise redirect failed) */
> - apr_sockaddr_port_get(&port,r->connection->local_addr);
> - s->server_port = port;
> + s->server_port = ap_get_server_port(r);
>
> s->server_software = (char *)ap_get_server_version();
>
> with this patch I'm also fine since it uses an API which still exists in
APR 1.0 (just compiled with httpd-2.1-dev); but since I've no NAT setup for
testing the issue described in bugzilla I cant tell if the patch solves the
isssue, nor if it hurts something else....
> but according to the 5 votes in bugzilla it seems to solve their problems,
so I tend to this patch now ...
>
> once it is decided what we use now, I will create the other patches for
mod_jk again...
>
>
> thanks, Guenter.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some people have a way with words, while others... erm... thingy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the
intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or
distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of this
message and any attachments.
In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through the
Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, such as
social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification numbers and
passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
