[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1029?page=comments#action_12330767
]
Jeff Genender commented on GERONIMO-1029:
-
This is the default date for the naming conventions for the access valves for
Tomcat. It looks correct according to its
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1029?page=comments#action_12330770
]
Aaron Mulder commented on GERONIMO-1029:
There is no "needed format" -- the format used by the TomcatLogManagerImpl just
needs to match the format used by the Tomc
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1029?page=comments#action_12330793
]
Joe Bohn commented on GERONIMO-1029:
I created the jira because there are never any records displayed in the web
access log viewer when G is configured using tomcat.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1029?page=comments#action_12331196
]
Joe Bohn commented on GERONIMO-1029:
It turns out this isn't a problem with tomcat, the web log viewer portlet, or
even really the management interface. However, it i
Yes...the 0.0.0.0 is from line 208 of the j2ee-tomcat-plan.xml, which
uses the PlanServerHostname from maven.xml (which happens to be 0.0.0.0):
prefix=${PlanServerHostname}_access_log.
We can change this via configuration. However, keep in mind this can
change since its configurable. Especia
Thanks for the information Jeff. Right now I'd just like to get it
working with the current log name tomcat. Sometime after that I'll try
to look into supporting various naming formats, multiple log files, etc...
I think something really strange is going on with my system (or perhaps
the G
It turns out this isn't a problem with tomcat, the web log viewer
portlet, or even really the management interface. However, it is a bit
related to running multiple containers concurrently.
The problem is that when we query the kernel get the WebManagerNames
from within the portlet(s) we get
There should now be "tomcat only" and "jetty only" sets of config files
in var/config. Does it work properly if you copy config.tomcat.* to
config.*? I would suggest that if you want to support the "both"
configuration you need to display all the WebManagers that are returned
rather than
Yup I agree that if we continue to support multiple web managers
then we need to enhance/extend the console for this. However, the
multiple containers was a fairly recent addition and the console hasn't
been updated to reflect this (plus I'm not sure if that decision is
final yet).
I th
