geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul McMahan <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geronimo Server 2.1 and Geronimo TxManager 2.1.1 Releases
Date Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:03:21 GMT
I share Jarek's concern about the impact of this problem but agree  
with Joe that there's an adequate (albeit not pretty) workaround.   
Knowing the full scope of this problem now my +1 still stands.  But I  
wish we had more information about the underlying problem because it  
might be simple to fix, and worth holding up the release for since I  
would expect that most users will want to use HTTPS for  
administration activities.  But if the fix involved getting a patch  
committed into pluto's svn then I think we should postpone that type  
of activity until Geronimo 2.1.1.

Best wishes,

On Feb 15, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:

> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Kevan Miller  
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>> Looks like I sent this to the wrong thread:
>>> This is about:
>>> Hmm this seems bad. I was able to reproduce the problem on port 8443
>>> only but _all_ portlets failed in this way. So the console is pretty
>>> much unusable on port 8443. Can somebody else verify these findings?
>>> Yep. Looks like a bug. Don't see this as a security exposure. So,  
>>> not sure
>>> why you want to discuss here.
>>> would seem  
>>> like the
>>> appropriate location to work on getting this fixed. Do you disagree?
>> But, IMHO, this is not just a bug it is a major bug where one of the
>> important pieces of Geronimo functionality is simply not working on
>> port 8443. Personally, I would have voted -1 on the release if I
>> realized the full scope of this bug sooner. But maybe that's just  
>> me..
>> so I would like to know what other people think about this  
>> problem. If
>> it's just me, that's fine. If not, maybe we should consider
>> withdrawing the release. Although the admin console is working  
>> fine on
>> port 8080 and maybe that's good enough.
>> Jarek
> I agree that this is a significant bug but given the current state  
> of the release and the fact that there is a work-around (although I  
> admit that it's hardly perfect) I think it makes sense to fix this  
> in a 2.1.1 release.  IMO, this issue makes it all the more  
> important to get 2.1.1 out without delay.
> Joe

View raw message