tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Filip Hanik" <fi...@filip.net>
Subject sendRedirect, include and forward don't work with mod_jk and non standard ssl port
Date Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:28:21 GMT
neither of the above functions work properly when I am using a non standard
port for https (ex: 445 instead of 443)

Apache 1.3.14
Tomcat 3.2.1 + mod_jk.so
Open SSL 0.9.6
mod_ssl 2.7.?-1.3.14

any idea why this is happening?

Filip
~
Namaste - I bow to the divine in you.
~
Filip Hanik
Technical Architect
filip@filip.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Remy Maucherat" <remy@betaversion.org>
To: <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Tomcat 4.0-beta API Change: Security Manager Facades


Quoting "Craig R. McClanahan" <Craig.McClanahan@eng.sun.com>:

> Kurt Schrader wrote:
>
> > So what do we need a 4.1 branch for then?
>
> If we take the action Remy recommends, we won't.  I'm +1 for this (it
> will certainly
> reduce the effort of double-committing all the changes), if we're
> willing to accept
> the fact that it will increase the time before a 4.0 production quality
> release is
> ready.

Given the delay caused by the security manager support inclusion and the
Valve
modifications, it won't probably cause any additional delay.

> The 4.1 branch was originally created because of a "feature freeze" on
> 4.0.  The
> various proposals today are effectively to "unfreeze" the 4.0 branch, so
> that some
> new functionality (already committed on the 4.1 branch) can get moved
> into 4.0
> instead, along with the other proposed changes that would otherwise need
> to be posted
> to both.
>
> We can recreate the 4.1 branch at some future point when 4.0 is
> refrozen.

Agreed.
It that case, I suggest that the 4.1 branch be merged back ASAP. Having a
non-
beta quality web connector in a beta wasn't a good thing anyway, IMO.

I wrongly interpreted the proposal on the security manager, as I was
answering
an email dealing with i18n at the same time (so I'm +1 now).
As Kief suggested, I think that no wrapping should occur if no security
manager
is present (common sense).

There is also a code change needed to provide proper i18n support. Instead
of
putting in a hack in 4.0 to get around one half of the issue, I suggest
instead
that some code is moved from the connector.http package to the connector
package (some buffers, as well as some code which needs to be merged into
HttpRequestBase).

Remy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message