tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pid <...@pidster.com>
Subject Re: httpd/Tomcat load balancing question
Date Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:37:23 GMT
On 23/12/2010 07:49, André Warnier wrote:
> Pid * wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2010, at 23:38, André Warnier <aw@ice-sa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Pid * wrote:
>>>> On 22 Dec 2010, at 23:02, Jeffrey Janner
>>>> <Jeffrey.Janner@PolyDyne.com> wrote:
>>>>> Definitely the culprit.  Now, I just have to convince the Dev team
>>>>> that they are, once again, a bunch of idiots.
>>>> Fail.
>>> Pid,
>>> why /do/ the "static objects" links embedded in the login page get
>>> back to the browser with a jsessionid appended ?
>>
>> <c:url is a JSTL tag which encodes a link.
> 
> So in clear everyday English, for the benefit of the oppressed minority
> who does not speak JSTL fluently, the fact of encoding this link in the
> page as "<c:url something..>" is the reason why Tomcat (roughly
> speaking) modifies it to add the ";jessionid" bit, yes ?
> And if one were to remove the "<c:url .." tag from those links, it
> wouldn't, right ?
> 
> And if so, why did you say "Fail" above ?

I was referring to the "Definitely the culprit." statement.
Fail because encoding the links to static resources is unnecessary.

> (apart from the name-calling of the Dev team, which may have been a bit
> overdone, this being Christmas and all)

Wasn't me... but I can understand the frustration.

There's a chance that someone find+replaced the code to add URL encoding
as a fix, but accidentally included the static resources too, of course.

> As long as we're at it, are there any dire consequences in this case for
> removing the "<c:url .." bit ?

For static resources?  No.  In this case, only gain.


p

Mime
View raw message