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=42085.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Author: mturk
Date: Wed Apr 11 06:28:06 2007
New Revision: 527486
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=527486
Log:
Add more options for links/elinks so it doesn't dump links in generated text
files.
Modified:
tomcat/connectors/trunk/jk/tools/jkrelease.sh
Modified:
Author: mturk
Date: Wed Apr 11 06:50:33 2007
New Revision: 527492
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=527492
Log:
Update command line Makefiles so they can produce multiple targets without
writing to the same output directory.
Modified:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi,
The quality check release was out few days ago.
Hi there is new quality check release available from:
http://people.apache.org/~mturk/jk-1.2.22-dev/
It contains few minor fixes mostly for documentation
and release script (owner/group for .tar)
I'll give it 24 hours
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=42090.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Thanks to Peter Rossbach for alerting me to this.
If we are using the Executor, and are using shrinking thread pools, the
RequestGroupInfo collects these objects and never releases them.
The only reason we don't see the problem with the default thread pool,
is cause it never shrinks, hence it
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=42090.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
attached is an example patch using weak references that would solve this
problem,
I'd like to get thoughts on this patch, please comment
if the attachment doesn't make it
http://people.apache.org/~fhanik/mem-leak-diff.patch
Filip
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Thanks to Peter Rossbach for
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=42038.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
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=42038.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
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=42085.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
attached is an example patch using weak references that would solve this
problem,
I'd like to get thoughts on this patch, please comment
if the attachment doesn't make it
http://people.apache.org/~fhanik/mem-leak-diff.patch
For sure it's not the right way to do
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=42038.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
attached is an example patch using weak references that would solve
this problem,
I'd like to get thoughts on this patch, please comment
if the attachment doesn't make it
http://people.apache.org/~fhanik/mem-leak-diff.patch
For sure it's
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
you're of course right, I think I simply need to get rid of the thread
local cache, and use the processor cache instead.
do you have any idea of the performance penalty? I'd probably use a
ConcurrentLinkedQueue or something instead of synchronized{processorCache}
Here is a revised patch for the memory leak.
One thing I noticed is that it goes a little farther than I think it does.
Since every request processor gets registered with JMX, I just couldn't
find a spot where it was unregistered.
And since the name was dynamic, ie based on the count++ variable,
Hello dev-list,
I'm a newbie to this list. I'm not sure if this would be the right
place to suggest a correction to Tomcat (please correct me if I'm
wrong).
I have a fresh install of Tomcat 6.0.10 and the web.xml under
apache-tomcat-6.0.10\conf\ , still refers to Servlet 2.4
?xml version=1.0
17 matches
Mail list logo
