tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amy Roh <amy...@apache.org>
Subject Re: wrong timeIdel value in StandardSession
Date Tue, 27 Apr 2004 05:37:08 GMT
Bill Barker wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Amy Roh" <amyroh@apache.org>
> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 6:07 PM
> Subject: wrong timeIdel value in StandardSession
> 
> 
> 
>>The following patch causes regression where sessions don't expire when it
>>should.  I have a test app that does refresh every 70 sec.  When I set
>>timeout to 2 minute - the session *never* expires.
>>
> 
> 
> I see the change to be not so much a regression as a bug-fix :).  Your app
> is accessing the session every 70 sec, so the session is never idle for the
> required 2 min to allow it to expire.

I see on Remy's commit that "Ths patch needs to be tested for possible 
regressions".  The test jsp actually checks if the session expired after 
timeout and alerts when refreshed.  I am attaching the jsp.


> 
> 
>>cvs diff -r 1.26 -r 1.27 StandardSession.java
>>
>>587c587
>><             int timeIdle = (int) ((timeNow - lastAccessedTime) / 1000L);
>>---
>>
>>>            int timeIdle = (int) ((timeNow - thisAccessedTime) / 1000L);


I have added some debugging statements and found the following.

setMaxInactiveInterval 120
timeIdle now 0
timeIdle before 0
timeIdle now 36
timeIdle before 36
timeIdle now 116
timeIdle before 186
WOULD HAVE EXPIRED WITH OLD TIMEIDLE
timeIdle now 70
timeIdle before 70
timeIdle now 0
timeIdle before 70
timeIdle now 26
timeIdle before 96
timeIdle now 70
timeIdle before 140
WOULD HAVE EXPIRED WITH OLD TIMEIDLE
timeIdle now 0
timeIdle before 70
timeIdle now 16
timeIdle before 86
timeIdle now 70
timeIdle before 140
WOULD HAVE EXPIRED WITH OLD TIMEIDLE
timeIdle now 0
timeIdle before 70
timeIdle now 6
timeIdle before 76
timeIdle now 66
timeIdle before 137
WOULD HAVE EXPIRED WITH OLD TIMEIDLE
timeIdle now 70
timeIdle before 140
WOULD HAVE EXPIRED WITH OLD TIMEIDLE
timeIdle now 0
timeIdle before 70
timeIdle now 56
timeIdle before 127
WOULD HAVE EXPIRED WITH OLD TIMEIDLE

Let me know what you think....

Thanks,
Amy


>>
>>I propose to revert the patch.
> 
> 
> I'm -1 on reverting unless you can explain why you think that the previous
> behavior is correct wrt the spec.  And, no, the fact that this bug has been
> in every version of Tomcat back to at least 3.2.x isn't good enough ;-).
> 
> 
> 
>>Thanks,
>>Amy
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 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) e-mail.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message