Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 26232 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2006 16:12:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Dec 2006 16:12:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 69510 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2006 16:11:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 69482 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2006 16:11:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 69460 invoked by uid 99); 13 Dec 2006 16:11:50 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:11:50 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [204.127.200.85] (HELO sccrmhc15.comcast.net) (204.127.200.85) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:11:39 -0800 Received: from [192.168.1.47] (c-69-143-26-154.hsd1.va.comcast.net[69.143.26.154]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc15) with ESMTP id <20061213161117015006u3f3e>; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:11:18 +0000 Message-ID: <4580269C.70301@christopherschultz.net> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:13:16 -0500 From: Christopher Schultz User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: [OT] Multi processor issue References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chuck, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: >> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:chris@christopherschultz.net] >> Subject: Re: [OT] Multi processor issue >> >> In that case, the OP could wrap their own request objects to actually >> prevent their bug in production while researching it in dev/test, > > The problem with doing so in this case is that while it might avoid this > particular crash of the application, it would not have actually > prevented the bug, and might well contribute to data corruption. Oh, I'm not suggesting that the real bug in the application shouldn't be fixed. I'm just suggesting a better band-aid than the current solution, which is basically to (somewhat) limit the possibility of encountering the Exception. The bug itself is completely unavoidable. Your point is well-taken, though: TC should not go out of it's way to provide the capability to run broken applications. We'll leave that capability to MSIE ;) - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFgCac9CaO5/Lv0PARAkB0AJ0Z1Q26ZuLCB2hHA/m+626hG6msGwCfUea2 yrSHXhfoTmoJ1mP1zsuLQVA= =jKsw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org