DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44223>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44223 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-17 04:12 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Tomcat ignores any of the SSL configuration system properties. But this statement is not true. Tomcat already consults the "javax.net.ssl.trustStore" and "javax.net.ssl.trustStorePassword" properties, only it was ignoring the third one, "javax.net.ssl.trustStoreType". I am not asking for a new feature here, this bug is about the inconsistent implementation of an existing feature. Look at the JSSESocketFactory.getTrustStore() method to see what's going on. > I was going to say it has always been this way, I didn't know why and if you > provided a patch that addressed all of them it would be considered. Well this patch completes the addressing of all of them. Only 2 out of 3 trust store related properties are being taken into account at the moment, and this patch adds support for the 3rd one. Either this inconsistency should be fixed, or else remove support for ALL trust store properties. The current situation is inconsistent and leads to maddening configuration issues (i.e. any reasonable person would assume that since 2 trust store properties appear supported the third one would be also, and then scratch their head when a non-descriptive JSSE exception hits them). > However, my brain is now in gear and the problem seems obvious. When using > system properties for configuration then everything is fine until two components > require conflicting settings. In a container environment this pretty much a > given. We had a similar issue with logging which is why Remy wrote JULI. > > Therefore, I am marking this as a WONTFIX on the grounds I see it causing more > problems than it solves. While I agree with your reasoning about container environments, I disagree with the WONTFIX assessment. Currently you have partial support for an arbitrary subset of trust store properties, which is the worst of both worlds. Either support all of them or none of them. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
