tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <>
Subject Re: To SSL or not SSL, that is the question
Date Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:17:18 GMT
There's not really any bad karma (I probably should have included more :)
markers).  My real reason for doing the Factory is the simple (and selfish
:) fact that the author gets to make sure that the features he cares about
get implemented :).

I still disagree with moving the SSLSupport out of the Request (especially
in j-t-c land, with it's re-factoring).  But it seems that I'm in a minority
of one on this :).  However, at the moment the only effect is that I'm not
writing the code to implement it, and I'm willing to wait to see the actual
code.  At that point, I might even admit that I was wrong :).

And for the record, Craig is the author of o.a.c.util.URL (renamed in 3.3).
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: To SSL or not SSL, that is the question

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Bill Barker wrote:
> > Having lost the vote on the URL commit, I'm making up for it by adding
> > URLStreamHandlerFactory to 3.3.  This implementation should make both
> It seems that even if we do discuss more, we still have communication
> problems :-)
> The URL commit was great, it solved a problem - and many thanks for Craig
> ( or Remy ) for implementing it and to you for doing the fix in 3.3. I was
> going to do it, but ( as usually lately :-) you did it faster.
> My point was that URL solves only one problem - and we have 2 problems
> with and https.
> URL solves the problem of Apache+SSL and tomcat with no JSSE. It solves
> other problems as well.
> The factory is needed for people who _want_ to use JSSE or another
> replacement, and with normal j.n.URL( "https"). That includes xml-soap,
> jaxm, etc. The 'replacement' URL can't help in this case.
> > I've been on the losing side of every vote on this project, so I'm going
> > take the novel approach of voting-first-then-committing :).  My personal

> > preference is to set the Factory at the end of ETC.init (since
> > Http10Interceptor currently changes the installed handler.pks).  I
> > that I'm going to lose on this vote as well, since this is relatively
> > to set it :)
> :-)
> I was thinking about changing Http10Interceptor to not set the handlers (
> since URLFactory makes it unnecesarry, and Http10Interceptor doesn't need
> it anyway ).
> But to brake the bad karma I'll vote +1 on your proposal ( especially
> since I was also thinking to set it very late ) :-)
> Costin
> ( BTW, IMHO the only way you can 'lose' is if after a vote you still
> think your solution was better than what was used - and if this is the
> case we all lose )
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


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) 

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message