portals-pluto-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David H. DeWolf" <ddew...@apache.org>
Subject Cross Context Sessions (was RE: Defining the release)
Date Thu, 07 Oct 2004 05:06:09 GMT
I think we need to put together some more tests to verify, but I *think*
that it may be possible to retrieve the session again from another INCLUDED
resource which is also "shadowing" the originating session.  If it's not the
case now, since it doesn't require the writing of a cookie or url rewriting,
we may be able to get Remy to add that fix.  I guess that's a step in the
right direction but it's still not good enough to meet the portlet spec.

I wonder what the JSR-168 team's interpretation of this is?  Obviously they
had figured it could be implemented somehow since the portlet spec depends
on it.  Stephen, do you have any insight (or pull to help us get this pushed
through)?  

Perhaps if some more of you comment on the bugzilla entry we can get some
more visibility and they'll see that it's more than just one or two of us
that need this functionality.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Lothian [mailto:nick.lothian@essential.com.au] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:55 PM
> To: 'pluto-dev@portals.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: Defining the release
> 
> 
> That's how I read it.
> 
> So if you put something in the session it is impossible for 
> you ever to
> retrieve it, right?
> 
> Nick
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David H. DeWolf [mailto:ddewolf@apache.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2004 2:20 PM
> > To: pluto-dev@portals.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Defining the release
> > 
> > 
> > Good Question.  
> > 
> > I think what he's saying is that tomcat's implementation 
> uses the same
> > sessionId that the originating session uses and thus a cookie 
> > and/or url
> > encoding isn't needed.
> > 
> > The problem with this thinking is that a session is totally 
> > useless unless
> > you can retrieve it during subsequent requests.  If this is 
> > going to be
> > their position, then there's no way to implement what we're 
> > talking about. .
> > .grrrr!
> > 
> > Anyone have any bright ideas?
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nick Lothian [mailto:nick.lothian@essential.com.au] 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:41 PM
> > > To: 'pluto-dev@portals.apache.org'
> > > Subject: RE: Defining the release
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm trying to understand Remy's latest comment on the Tomcat 
> > > bug causing
> > > this: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4690
> > > 
> > > He says: "The included session is merely a shadow of the 
> > > including session.
> > > As a result,
> > > it will not be handled as an actual session with an 
> > > independant cookie."
> > > 
> > > What does that mean? 
> > > 
> > > Nick
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: David H. DeWolf [mailto:ddewolf@apache.org]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2004 1:55 PM
> > > > To: pluto-dev@portals.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Defining the release
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I tested this tonight and agree.  I'd be shocked if pluto 
> > > > passed this part
> > > > of the TCK test.
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Eric Dalquist [mailto:edalquist@unicon.net] 
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:56 PM
> > > > > To: pluto-dev@portals.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Defining the release
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nick,
> > > > >     Thats what I was thinking, now I don't think this should 
> > > > > hinder the 
> > > > > upcoming release of pluto and I'm hoping it comes out soon 
> > > > > :-). I just 
> > > > > wanted to make sure that the release isn't advertised as 
> > > > > passing the TCK 
> > > > > tests when it doesn't.
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Eric
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nick Lothian wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >I'd be very surprised if they pass, since I was using Tomcat

> > > > > 4 when I first
> > > > > >came across the bug.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >See
> > > > > >http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=pluto-dev
> > > > > @portals.apache
> > > > > >.org&msgNo=349
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Nick
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>From: Eric Dalquist [mailto:edalquist@unicon.net]
> > > > > >>Sent: Thursday, 7 October 2004 1:16 AM
> > > > > >>To: pluto-dev@portals.apache.org
> > > > > >>Subject: Re: Defining the release
> > > > > >>Importance: Low
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Have these TCK tests been run with the latest version of

> > > > pluto and 
> > > > > >>Tomcat 4? There was a recent post to bug 53 
> > > > > >>http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/browse/PLUTO-53 that 
> > stated they 
> > > > > >>portlet/servlet session sharing problem is being 
> observed on 
> > > > > >>Tomcat 4.1.29
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>-Eric
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Michael Blum wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>    
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>Hello, sorry for being late. I think that David's 
> > > > conclusion makes 
> > > > > >>>sense! We should provide as an alternative package Pluto

> > > > > >>>      
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>with Tomcat 
> > > > > >>    
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>4.x (27 or  newer), when we are able to verify the 
> > > > > >>>      
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>compatibility using 
> > > > > >>    
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>TCK at Apache. This can be Pluto's Reference 
> > > > > Implementation package 
> > > > > >>>until we have fixes for Pluto with Tomcat 5.x .
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Michael
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>David H. DeWolf wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>      
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>When Pluto was donated to Apache last year it
had 
> > > been tested 
> > > > > >>>>>thoroughly using the Portlet TCK, Version 1.0.
This 
> > > > means it had 
> > > > > >>>>>passed all relevant tests successfully with JDK
1.3.1 
> > > > on Tomcat 
> > > > > >>>>>4.1.27. These TCK tests include many tests for

> > > Portlet Session.
> > > > > >>>>>          
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>I did not know that! If that's the case, then I'd

> say that 
> > > > > >>>>        
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>the only 
> > > > > >>    
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>thing we
> > > > > >>>>need to do before releasing is update the "binary"

> > > > > distribution so 
> > > > > >>>>that it
> > > > > >>>>ships with Tomcat 4.1.27 instead of Tomcat 5.x.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>David
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>        
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 


Mime
View raw message