HI Filip,
can you please add your changes at changelog.xml (BUG 43356)
Peter
Am 14.09.2007 um 23:30 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Author: fhanik
Date: Fri Sep 14 14:30:29 2007
New Revision: 575798
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=575798view=rev
Log:
Backport from earlier fix
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=43366.
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=43338.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Author: pero
Date: Sat Sep 15 00:55:42 2007
New Revision: 575890
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=575890view=rev
Log:
SRV 6.2.5 says supporting for '*' as the servlet-name in filter-mapping.
filter-mapping
filter-nameSampleFilter/filter-name
servlet-name*/servlet-name
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=43338.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Tim Funk wrote:
2) If a deploy tool is used which is doing checks - adding an extra
check to allow/deny/restrict scope should not be too hard to do. Since
users can disable symlink checks in the same class (FileDirContext) -
the same exposure could be had with a little more effort.
I'm not
David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 14, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
- adding methods or altering the signature of the javax. APIs is
clearly illegal
yes, that would not be spec compliant, that's essentially what spec
compliant means, that we pass the signature test (which we
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=43366.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Tim Funk wrote:
2) If a deploy tool is used which is doing checks - adding an extra
check to allow/deny/restrict scope should not be too hard to do. Since
users can disable symlink checks in the same class (FileDirContext) -
the same exposure could be had with a little
Remy Maucherat wrote:
I tested with the security manager, and it doesn't behave correctly.
If the context.xml inside a webapp is:
Context
Resources className=org.apache.naming.resources.FileDirContext
docBase=c:/foo aliases=/mysecretpath/=c:/ /
/Context
The docBase hack
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=43366.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
This simply has to stop.
taking trunk away, this turn of events is expected. I wish everyone
would have thought of that before we got caught up in the personal, and
not what is important, trunk debate.
I did, as well others did (I hope)
Well, regarding the veto - it's simple. I second Remy's opinion that the
veto is valid
and the change is not right at the moment, and I guess that should close
this discussion.
The discussion about whether to add such a feature or not - I think a simple
vote
would solve this as well, it's quite
Costin Manolache wrote:
Well, regarding the veto - it's simple. I second Remy's opinion that the
veto is valid
and the change is not right at the moment, and I guess that should close
this discussion.
The discussion about whether to add such a feature or not - I think a simple
vote
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=43366.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On 9/15/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Well, regarding the veto - it's simple. I second Remy's opinion that the
veto is valid
and the change is not right at the moment, and I guess that should
close
this discussion.
The discussion about whether
Author: funkman
Date: Sat Sep 15 10:42:01 2007
New Revision: 575945
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=575945view=rev
Log:
undo 575332 (alias support) due to 2 vetos
Modified:
tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/java/org/apache/naming/resources/FileDirContext.java
Mladen Turk wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
This simply has to stop.
taking trunk away, this turn of events is expected. I wish everyone
would have thought of that before we got caught up in the personal,
and not what is important, trunk debate.
I did, as well
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
I'll vote +1 for bringing trunk back any time when I see
your TODO list. Sorry but without that Tomcat6 is not Tomact6
but rather your personal (and anyone else) playground.
bummer, I guess you never saw this
Costin Manolache wrote:
Regarding feedback on patch - I think I expressed my concerns:
- more analysis and understanding of security implications
- if possible to do it at a different (higher) level
- if it can be done in a modular fashion, i.e. keeping the default impl the
way it is,
20 matches
Mail list logo
