https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #25 from J Fernandez ---
I believe that there are additional benefits for separating the websocket
client from the container. For example, we could enhance the redirect flow when
behind a proxy by caching the SocketChannel for a con
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #23 from Remy Maucherat ---
I prefer getting rid of the field instead, the GC savings are minimal and not
worth it IMO.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #22 from Remy Maucherat ---
Yes, that would be a big problem with my "simplification" then. Ooops. I will
restore the separate client class, it's a good solution for the issue.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #21 from Mark Thomas ---
Wasn't the point of the new class that the redirectSet wasn't thread safe?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #20 from Remy Maucherat ---
I committed the patch to trunk, with a few changes:
- Adding javadocs
- Merged all client code back to WsWebSocketContainer (the new client class was
taking over nearly all its code so I didn't really see
Github user markt-asf commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/73
No objections to back-porting here.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-ma
Github user rmaucher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/73
Well, it looks ok to me overall, so I'll add a bit of javadoc and merge it.
Any issue with backporting it ?
---
-
To unsubscribe,
Github user markt-asf commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/73
Chris's original concern with the BZ 57767 patch (lack of Javadoc) still
needs to be addressed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: de
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #19 from J Fernandez ---
Are there any additional proposed changes for this patch? I would like to
leverage some of the functionality for
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59758.
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #18 from J Fernandez ---
I have spent some time looking for opportunities to reuse but did not find
many. We could replace the WWWAuthenticate parser for digest with
org.apache.tomcat.util.http.parser, but we will still need the one
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #17 from Remy Maucherat ---
Yes, I would rather integrate it (if it works) then see about reuse. I also
don't think javadoc is a big issue either for this kind of code.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #16 from Mark Thomas ---
If there is a possibility of reuse ( this is client side and the existing code
is server side) we'd need to be careful about which package / jar we put it in
to avoid adding unwanted dependencies for the Web
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #15 from Christopher Schultz ---
None of the Java classes in the authentication support patch have any Javadoc.
I'm -1 on accepting the patch on that basis alone. I've skimmed the code and it
otherwise looks good, but I have not tes
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #14 from J Fernandez ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #13)
> Ok, so that's obviously the big item (IMO), that looks good.
> I'm not convinced that digest is useful anymore, do you think it is ? On the
> plus side, you di
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||PatchAvailable
--
You are recei
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #13 from Remy Maucherat ---
Ok, so that's obviously the big item (IMO), that looks good.
I'm not convinced that digest is useful anymore, do you think it is ? On the
plus side, you did it already, on the minus side we'll have to mai
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #12 from J Fernandez ---
Created attachment 35289
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35289&action=edit
Authentication support
Please find below additional changes.
Added support for Basic and Digest Authenticat
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ma...@apache.org|
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #10 from Mark Thomas ---
Add
execute.validate=true
to your build.properties file and run
ant validate
The configuration files are in res/checkstyle.
Please open a new bugzilla enhancement for adding authentication support. If
y
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #9 from J Fernandez ---
Where can I learn more about CheckStyle? I assume, there is a formatting file
involved. Also, I am interested in adding support for authentication, should I
submit a patch to to this thread? Thanks for your t
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
J Fernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jfern...@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from J
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
Re-read my comment #4 regarding a suitable test case and how to activate it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #5 from MikeLing ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #4)
> I'd suggest supporting 302 responses as a starting point. The code should
> handle both absolute and relative redirects.
>
> There is a ready made test case here:
> h
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas ---
I'd suggest supporting 302 responses as a starting point. The code should
handle both absolute and relative redirects.
There is a ready made test case here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/trunk/test/org
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
--- Comment #3 from MikeLing ---
Hey, I would like to work on this issue if it's ok :) However, as a newbie to
tomcat, could you tell me where should I look into? BTW, I had clone and set up
tomcat locally and my environment is Ubuntu16.04
Th
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kmcla...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 fro
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@apache.org
--- Comment #1 from Mar
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57767
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
Component|Catalina
31 matches
Mail list logo
