Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 51447 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2010 20:48:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2010 20:48:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 15872 invoked by uid 500); 9 Aug 2010 20:48:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 15833 invoked by uid 500); 9 Aug 2010 20:48:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 15824 invoked by uid 99); 9 Aug 2010 20:48:38 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:48:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [76.96.30.96] (HELO qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.30.96) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:48:29 +0000 Received: from omta16.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.72]) by qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sClJ1e0031ZMdJ4A9Lo9Zy; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:48:09 +0000 Received: from [192.168.199.10] ([69.251.84.64]) by omta16.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sLo71e0041PGofZ8cLo8if; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:48:08 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Tomcat 7.0.2 From: Jim Jagielski In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:48:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <460898FE-5443-4D39-AB35-E66FD0FDADB8@apache.org> References: <4C58B873.2080504@apache.org> To: "Tomcat Developers List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Hopefully better late than never: +1 On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Jason Brittain wrote: > Hi all! >=20 > [X] Beta - go ahead and release as 7.0.2 Beta >>=20 >=20 > It seems very close to stable, to me. >=20 > One thing I noticed while testing 7.0.2 is that the WebModule MBean > ObjectNames differ slightly from those of Tomcat 6. Example: >=20 > Tomcat 7.0.2, ObjectName for the context "/": > = Catalina:j2eeType=3DWebModule,name=3Dlocalhost/,J2EEApplication=3Dnone,J2E= EServer=3Dnone >=20 > Tomcat 6.0.x, ObjectName for the context "/": > = Catalina:j2eeType=3DWebModule,name=3D//localhost/,J2EEApplication=3Dnone,J= 2EEServer=3Dnone >=20 > The diff is the two slashes in front of the hostname. I'm not sure = why the > two slashes were there in the first place (I don't see it anywhere in = JSR > 77), nor if they served a purpose. Here's the code in Tomcat 6's > StandardContext (easy to find!) that built the string: >=20 > String name=3D "//" + ((hostName=3D=3Dnull)? "DEFAULT" : = hostName) + > (("".equals(pathName))?"/":pathName ); >=20 > In Tomcat 7 it's in StandardWrapper (a little harder to find): >=20 > private String getWebModuleKeyProperties() { >=20 > StringBuilder keyProperties =3D new = StringBuilder(",WebModule=3D"); > String hostName =3D getParent().getParent().getName(); > if (hostName =3D=3D null) { > keyProperties.append("DEFAULT"); > } else { > keyProperties.append(hostName); > } > ... >=20 > I guess my question is: even if the slashes didn't serve any purpose, = do we > want Tomcat 7's values to be consistent with those of Tomcat 6 for JMX = API > compatibility reasons? >=20 > This was just one small inconsistency I noticed, versus Tomcat 6. I = have > not checked other object name values nor attribute values versus those = of > Tomcat 6. >=20 > Thanks. > -- > Jason --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org