tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <wbar...@wilshire.com>
Subject Re: Bug 13658
Date Sun, 20 Oct 2002 07:58:18 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Remy Maucherat" <remm@apache.org>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Bug 13658


> Bill Barker wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Remy Maucherat"
> > To: "Tomcat Developers List"
> > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: Bug 13658
> >
> >
> >
> > >Bill Barker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Before I start performing major surgery on the TC4/5 connector,  I
> > >>wanted to
> > >>check on what is the reason for having the attributes field in
> > >>CoyoteRequest
> > >>(instead of just delegating to the o.a.c.Request like the 3.3 Adapter
> > >>does).
> > >>
> > >>At the moment, the SSL request attributes are set on the o.a.c.Request
> > >>(because that's all that the Action knows about).  This is Ok for
> > >>getAttribute, since it delegates when not found.  But for
> > >>getAttributeNames,
> > >>it only uses the names known to the attributes field (so no SSL
> > >>attributes).
> > >>
> > >>My strong preference is to delegate always (cleaner, esp. for TC 5
> > >>that will
> > >>be able to access Coyote directly).  But I can fix this particular bug
> > >>either way.
> > >
> > >I don't remember the reason. I probably chose not to delegate since
> > >there might not have been any attributes ariginally in the Coyote
> > >Request object.
> > >So it wasn't done because it wasn't there; I don't think there ever was
> > >a Good Reason (TM) for that.
> > >
> > >+1 to fix it.
> > >
> > >What's the surgery you want to do ?
> >
> >
> > Basically, remove the attributes field from CoyoteRequest, and
> > delegate all
> > attribute related methods.  The downside is that the CoyoteRequest uses
a
> > HashMap, and the o.a.c.Request uses a Hashtable (non-sync/sync).  For
3.3,
> > I'd really like to keep the Hashtable in the o.a.c.Request (so that
Coyote
> > can be used with 3.3/J2ME).  There is also the issue of the proposal
> > to have
> > lazy evaluation in TC 5.
>
> Sorry, I forgot about the hashtable problem. -1 then (or +1 to switch to
> more efficient collections). We could have two versions of the
> Request/Response classes, or use some preprocessing with Ant.
>
> My work optimizing Tomcat is completely useless if it's to add many syncs.

Right (and if I didn't have to support the 1.1.x community I'd agree).
Until Henri/Costin/Larry offer their opinions on supporting Coyote with 3.3
for Java2 only, I'll have to (reluctantly) -1 using a HashMap in
o.a.c.Request.

I'll patch the CoyoteRequest to copy the SSL attributes to the attributes
field.

>
> Remy
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>


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


Mime
View raw message