RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
A release will be nice since there were many bugs out since the 3.2.1 (jsp/jk) I think it will be time to make TC 3.2 release more frequently. +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
BugReport 748 came in this morning. I'm up to my eyeballs at work lately so I haven't been able to look at it in depth, but it does look like a real spec violation so it probably should be considered for 3.2.2. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans > Bergsten > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 2:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > Hans Bergsten wrote: > > > > "Ignacio J. Ortega" wrote: > > > > > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > > > > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 oe 3 weeks > > > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 > #653 #513 , > > > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i > will revise > > > BugRat to close related bugs , if you agree it's already resolved.. > > > > I was using the 3.2.1 version, not the latest CVS version (duh!). > > Will test again with the CVS version. > > Okay, I have tested with the latest tomcat_32 version from CVS > now and it works as it should. So the patch you applied solved > the problem. Thanks for telling me before I spent time trying to > solve this again ;-) > > Great, then I don't know of any serious issues that should hold up > a 3.2.2 release. > > Hans > -- > Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com > Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
Hans Bergsten wrote: > > "Ignacio J. Ortega" wrote: > > > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 oe 3 weeks > > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 #653 #513 , > > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i will revise > > BugRat to close related bugs , if you agree it's already resolved.. > > I was using the 3.2.1 version, not the latest CVS version (duh!). > Will test again with the CVS version. Okay, I have tested with the latest tomcat_32 version from CVS now and it works as it should. So the patch you applied solved the problem. Thanks for telling me before I spent time trying to solve this again ;-) Great, then I don't know of any serious issues that should hold up a 3.2.2 release. Hans -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
"Ignacio J. Ortega" wrote: > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 oe 3 weeks > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 #653 #513 , > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i will revise > BugRat to close related bugs , if you agree it's already resolved.. I was using the 3.2.1 version, not the latest CVS version (duh!). Will test again with the CVS version. Hans -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
I'd like to hear from Hans before we close the report. He was able to duplicate the problem but I wasn't. If he's running tomcat_321_final then that would be expected, if he's using tomcat_32 latest and still seeing the problem then something else is wrong. > -Original Message- > From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:21 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > So you cant found a buggy behavior, it's solved by the previously pathc > aplied , isn't it? > > I will close that report , and declare it resolved, if nobody > complains.. > > Sorry i read exactly the inverse of your message, that is you can probe > the buggy behavior :-), > > Saludos , > Ignacio J. Ortega > > > > -Mensaje original- > > De: Marc Saegesser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 15:12 > > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Asunto: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > > > > I cvsup and build from source several times a week to make > > sure none of the > > changes going in have any detrimental effects on my application. I'm > > testing with the latest on the tomcat_32 branch. > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:03 AM > > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > > Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has > > been filed.] > > > > > > > > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > > > > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 > > oe 3 weeks > > > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 > > #653 #513 , > > > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i > > will revise > > > BugRat to close related bugs , if you agree it's already resolved.. > > > > > > > > > Saludos , > > > Ignacio J. Ortega > > > > > > > > > > -Mensaje original- > > > > De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Hans > > > > Bergsten > > > > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 8:46 > > > > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Asunto: Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has > > been filed.] > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc Saegesser wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Regarding BugReport #744. I've been trying to duplicate it > > > > on my Win2000 > > > > > system and haven't had any luck. I always get back the > > > > executed page. Has > > > > > anyone else been able to duplicate the problem behavior? > > > > > > > > I actually tested it today (on a Red Hat 7 system, but I > > doubt that > > > > matters) > > > > and was able to reproduce it easily; just make a GET request > > > > without the > > > > protocol. I haven't had a chance to try to figure out why > > yet though. > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Hans > > > > -- > > > > Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com > > > > Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
So you cant found a buggy behavior, it's solved by the previously pathc aplied , isn't it? I will close that report , and declare it resolved, if nobody complains.. Sorry i read exactly the inverse of your message, that is you can probe the buggy behavior :-), Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega > -Mensaje original- > De: Marc Saegesser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 15:12 > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Asunto: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > I cvsup and build from source several times a week to make > sure none of the > changes going in have any detrimental effects on my application. I'm > testing with the latest on the tomcat_32 branch. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:03 AM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has > been filed.] > > > > > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 > oe 3 weeks > > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 > #653 #513 , > > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i > will revise > > BugRat to close related bugs , if you agree it's already resolved.. > > > > > > Saludos , > > Ignacio J. Ortega > > > > > > > -Mensaje original----- > > > De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Hans > > > Bergsten > > > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 8:46 > > > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Asunto: Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has > been filed.] > > > > > > > > > Marc Saegesser wrote: > > > > > > > > Regarding BugReport #744. I've been trying to duplicate it > > > on my Win2000 > > > > system and haven't had any luck. I always get back the > > > executed page. Has > > > > anyone else been able to duplicate the problem behavior? > > > > > > I actually tested it today (on a Red Hat 7 system, but I > doubt that > > > matters) > > > and was able to reproduce it easily; just make a GET request > > > without the > > > protocol. I haven't had a chance to try to figure out why > yet though. > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Hans > > > -- > > > Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com > > > Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com > > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
I cvsup and build from source several times a week to make sure none of the changes going in have any detrimental effects on my application. I'm testing with the latest on the tomcat_32 branch. > -Original Message- > From: Ignacio J. Ortega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:03 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > Hola Hans , Marc: > > You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 oe 3 weeks > ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 #653 #513 , > and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i will revise > BugRat to close related bugs , if you agree it's already resolved.. > > > Saludos , > Ignacio J. Ortega > > > > -Mensaje original- > > De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Hans > > Bergsten > > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 8:46 > > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Asunto: Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > > > > Marc Saegesser wrote: > > > > > > Regarding BugReport #744. I've been trying to duplicate it > > on my Win2000 > > > system and haven't had any luck. I always get back the > > executed page. Has > > > anyone else been able to duplicate the problem behavior? > > > > I actually tested it today (on a Red Hat 7 system, but I doubt that > > matters) > > and was able to reproduce it easily; just make a GET request > > without the > > protocol. I haven't had a chance to try to figure out why yet though. > > > > > [...] > > > > Hans > > -- > > Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com > > Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
Hola Hans , Marc: You are using 3.2 from CVS AFAIK i did apply a patch 2 oe 3 weeks ago , that seems to resolve this problem, were reports #619 #653 #513 , and i think this is resolved in CVS, please review it and i will revise BugRat to close related bugs , if you agree it's already resolved.. Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega > -Mensaje original- > De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Hans > Bergsten > Enviado el: viernes 12 de enero de 2001 8:46 > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Asunto: Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > Marc Saegesser wrote: > > > > Regarding BugReport #744. I've been trying to duplicate it > on my Win2000 > > system and haven't had any luck. I always get back the > executed page. Has > > anyone else been able to duplicate the problem behavior? > > I actually tested it today (on a Red Hat 7 system, but I doubt that > matters) > and was able to reproduce it easily; just make a GET request > without the > protocol. I haven't had a chance to try to figure out why yet though. > > > [...] > > Hans > -- > Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com > Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
Marc Saegesser wrote: > > Regarding BugReport #744. I've been trying to duplicate it on my Win2000 > system and haven't had any luck. I always get back the executed page. Has > anyone else been able to duplicate the problem behavior? I actually tested it today (on a Red Hat 7 system, but I doubt that matters) and was able to reproduce it easily; just make a GET request without the protocol. I haven't had a chance to try to figure out why yet though. > [...] Hans -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
Regarding BugReport #744. I've been trying to duplicate it on my Win2000 system and haven't had any luck. I always get back the executed page. Has anyone else been able to duplicate the problem behavior? As for 3.2.2, I think we should give 3.2.1 a little more soak time. The flow of bug reports seems to have increased which means that people are using the release. I don't think there are any really critical bugs fixed so far so another week or so should hurt and with the extra usage we might find something that should be addressed. With any luck, 3.2.2 puts this release to bed and there won't be a need for a 3.2.3. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans > Bergsten > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.] > > > "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote: > > > > Glenn Nielsen wrote: > > > > > I stand corrected. > > > > > > The below problem was a bug in Tomcat. Wrapping the RequestDispatcher > > > forward() and include() methods with a doPrivileged() if a > SecurityManager > > > is being used fixed the problem. When Tomcat 3.2.2 is > released you will > > > no longer need to edit the jre/lib/security/java.security > file to comment > > > out the package.access=sun. line. > > > > > > This fix is in the 3.2 CVS branch, and will be in the Tomcat > 3.2.2 release. > > > > > > > Glenn (and others), > > > > Have we accumulated enough bug fixes where it's worth creating > a 3.2.2 release, > > or are there more issues that should be > > dealt with first? > > I've seen the problem most recently reported in BugReport #744 described > a > few times now, but I haven't had a chance to verify it and look for a > solution. > Since this is a security bug, it seems like something that should be > included > in 3.2.2. > > I'll try to take a closer look at it this weekend, but can't promise > anything. > > Hans > -- > Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com > Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tomcat 3.2.2 [Was: Re: BugRat Report #690 has been filed.]
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote: > > Glenn Nielsen wrote: > > > I stand corrected. > > > > The below problem was a bug in Tomcat. Wrapping the RequestDispatcher > > forward() and include() methods with a doPrivileged() if a SecurityManager > > is being used fixed the problem. When Tomcat 3.2.2 is released you will > > no longer need to edit the jre/lib/security/java.security file to comment > > out the package.access=sun. line. > > > > This fix is in the 3.2 CVS branch, and will be in the Tomcat 3.2.2 release. > > > > Glenn (and others), > > Have we accumulated enough bug fixes where it's worth creating a 3.2.2 release, > or are there more issues that should be > dealt with first? I've seen the problem most recently reported in BugReport #744 described a few times now, but I haven't had a chance to verify it and look for a solution. Since this is a security bug, it seems like something that should be included in 3.2.2. I'll try to take a closer look at it this weekend, but can't promise anything. Hans -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
