tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52191] SHM file name for ISAPI Redirector is not unique when multiple ISAPI Redirectors on Website
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:56:32 GMT

--- Comment #3 from Tim Whittington <> 2011-11-17 23:56:32 UTC ---
> Also could you explain the purpose of having multiple ISAPI redirectors's

Déjà vu:) From 2005:
I've had second thoughts about that approach since then - maybe in 1.3 we can
look at modularising the configuration ala Apache conf.d directories rather
than adding multiple instances, but it's a long standing feature now...

> We use so many static variables since design presumes we are loaded once per

IIS seems to cope fine with loading multiple instances of the same redirector
DLL into the same process. This can be seen if you configure multiple copies
(separate files on disk) of the ISAPI Redirector DLL as ISAPI Filters on a
site, and then inspect inetinfo.exe with something like the Sysinternals
Process Explorer (DLL view).
You can also see it in the debug logs, where the values of the TOMCAT* headers
are uniqued with the DLL handle (in DllMain).

I think the extension URI is the way to go on this one at the moment - within a
site, it will uniquely identify the ISAPI Redirector configuration, and we
already have enough uniqueness in the filename to cover the server/site/app
pool combination.

> I added shmemName now has APP_POOL_ID which should allow more unique name.
Yeah, I noticed that.

OT: I'm not sure whether that adds any uniqueness - in my (Windows 2003/IIS 6)
server, you can only assign a Web Site to an Application Pool (not individual
filters etc.), so the application pool name doesn't seem to add anything to the
site/instance ID? i.e. since a filter is defined on the web site, and a web
site can only be in one application pool, then the site/instance ID uniquely
identifies the process that filter can live in?
I haven't been brave enough to see what happens if the site application pool is
not the same as the extension virtual directory application pool in worker
process isolation mode. I expect it will get confused.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message