Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-142904-apmail-tomcat-dev-archive=tomcat.apache.org@tomcat.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C03F810357
	for <apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri,  4 Oct 2013 15:18:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 12201 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2013 15:18:36 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11864 invoked by uid 500); 4 Oct 2013 15:18:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.tomcat.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11851 invoked by uid 99); 4 Oct 2013 15:18:34 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:18:34 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=5.0
	tests=ALL_TRUSTED
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received: from [140.211.11.115] (HELO eir.zones.apache.org) (140.211.11.115)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:18:33 +0000
Received: by eir.zones.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 80)
	id 2F5B61BCFB; Fri,  4 Oct 2013 15:18:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: dev@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: [Bug 55618] Possible class loading issue in tomcat 8 RC3..?
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:18:08 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Tomcat 8
X-Bugzilla-Component: Catalina
X-Bugzilla-Version: 8.0.0-RC3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: regression
X-Bugzilla-Who: sander.sonajalg@gmail.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dev@tomcat.apache.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ----
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-55618-78-nK1pOCAWxy@https.issues.apache.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55618-78@https.issues.apache.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55618-78@https.issues.apache.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D55618

--- Comment #6 from Sander S=C3=B5najalg <sander.sonajalg@gmail.com> ---
Hi,
I'm now quite sure that it is the <listener> definition in web.xml. I'll do
some more research.. it seems that tomcat 6.x/7.x detected the duplicate
Listener instance and didn't execute it, while tomcat 8.x starts a duplicate
Listener (I'm far from being competent enough here to say which approach is
more desired.. you probably know it better). I'll test some more on my own.=
.. I
just hope that the situation is not that old containers *require* <listener>
element to be there and new ones *require it not to be there*, which would =
lead
to a backwards compatibility problem. I'll research some more ..

Thanks!

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=

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