tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GOMEZ Henri <hgo...@slib.fr>
Subject RE: About bug#208
Date Mon, 07 May 2001 21:14:10 GMT
>I just commited the fix for 3.2.2.

Not really.

When the hostname is null or missing, you copy the host IP
adress, but we there the name (DNS resolution). Something 
done by the caller (which agree to pay the price).

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:hgomez@slib.fr]
>> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:16 AM
>> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: About bug#208 
>> 
>> 
>> >According to the JavaDoc for ServletRequest.getRemoteHost()
>> >
>> >Returns the fully qualified name of the client that sent the 
>> >request, or the
>> >IP address of the client if the name cannot be determined. For HTTP
>> >servlets, same as the value of the CGI variable REMOTE_HOST.
>> >
>> >Based on that I would say that both implementations are wrong, 
>> >you should
>> >never get an empty or a null value back.  I would also 
>argue strongly
>> >against having tomcat do any reverse DNS look ups.  If the 
>web server
>> >doesn't tell us the remote host name just use the IP address.
>> 
>> Ok, I'll do accordingly. 
>> Did the 3.2.2 tree is closed ?
>> 
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:hgomez@slib.fr]
>> >> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:00 AM
>> >> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> Subject: About bug#208
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> The BUG #208 (request.getRemoteHost() returns empty string when
>> >> using mod_jk
>> >> BugRat Report#320)
>> >> is still there (3.2.2b4). The difference is that when we're 
>> >using ajp12,
>> >> getRemoteHost = ""
>> >> and in ajp13, getRemoteHost = null.
>> >>
>> >> The fix is easy the getRemoteAddr() is allways set but :
>> >>
>> >> - Did we want to Tomcat ask the DNS to resolve the name 
>since it may
>> >>   be time consuming ?
>> >>
>> >> - ajp12 return empty string, ajp13 return null, what solution is
>> >> recommanded
>> >>   in that case ?
>> >>
>> >> I also suspect TC 3.3 to have the same kind of problem ;(
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> Henri Gomez                 ___[_]____
>> >> EMAIL : hgomez@slib.fr        (. .)
>> >> PGP KEY : 697ECEDD    ...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
>> >> PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:hgomez@slib.fr]
>> >> >Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:40 PM
>> >> >To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >Subject: [PROPOSAL AJP14] AJP13 Evolution
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Hi to all,
>> >> >
>> >> >You could find attached a proposal of evolution to
>> >> >the current Apache JServ Protocol version 1.3,
>> >> >also known as ajp13.
>> >> >
>> >> >Let start the comments, questions, remarks cycle.....
>> >> >
>> >> >PS : I've not cover here the full protocol but only the add-on
>> >> >     from ajp13.
>> >> >
>> >> >-
>> >> >Henri Gomez                 ___[_]____
>> >> >EMAIL : hgomez@slib.fr        (. .)
>> >> >PGP KEY : 697ECEDD    ...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
>> >> >PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>

Mime
View raw message