https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69376
--- Comment #2 from new york vanilla ---
Comment on attachment 39895
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39895
www.nyvanilla.com
www.nyvanilla.com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69376
new york vanilla changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||www.nyvanilla.com
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69376
Bug ID: 69376
Summary: vanilla newyork
Product: Tomcat Connectors
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69375
--- Comment #3 from Chuck Caldarale ---
The content of attachment 39894 has been deleted for the following reason:
Spam
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69375
Chuck Caldarale changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Summary
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69375
--- Comment #2 from Akshar herbs and Spices ---
https://www.aksharherbsandspices.com/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69375
Akshar herbs and Spices changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
URL
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69375
Bug ID: 69375
Summary: herbaltea teablend driedfruitsnacks
Product: Taglibs
Version: 1.2.3
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69374
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--- Comment #1
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69374
Bug ID: 69374
Summary: Properly separate between table header and body in
DefaultServlet's listing
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware: All
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69373
--- Comment #1 from Michael Osipov ---
Created attachment 39892
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39892&action=edit
First patch
Here is the first patch. Trivial.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69373
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69373
Bug ID: 69373
Summary: Make DefaultServlet's HTML listing file last modified
rendering better (flexible)
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69370
--- Comment #3 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #2)
> I recommend not changing the strings names, it's basically a waste of time.
>
> Other than that, I doubt anyone has any interest on improving
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69370
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Remy
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69372
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69372
Bug ID: 69372
Summary: Make DefaultServlet's HTML listing file size rendering
better (autoscale)
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware: All
OS
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
--- Comment #3 from Michael Osipov ---
If the context-sensitivity is still required, then this should be an opt-in via
servlet config.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #19 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #18)
> Additional fix applied.
Confirmed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
--- Comment #2 from Michael Osipov ---
The expectation is to print the same path as in D:href for a DAV response.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
--- Comment #1 from Michael Osipov ---
Created attachment 39890
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39890&action=edit
DefaultServlet
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371
Bug ID: 69371
Summary: DefaultServlet's HTML listing renders incomplete paths
for directory and its parent
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #18 from Mark Thomas ---
Additional fix applied.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69370
--- Comment #1 from Michael Osipov ---
By listing I refer to the HTML-rendered output.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69370
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69370
Bug ID: 69370
Summary: DefaultServlet's listing uses incorrect labels
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Sev
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
--- Comment #7 from Mark Thomas ---
Fixed in:
- 11.0.x for 11.0.0 onwards
- 10.1.x for 10.1.31 onwards
- 9.0.x for 9.0.96 onwards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #17 from Michael Osipov ---
Example:
osipovmi@deblndw011x:~
$ curl --negotiate -u : -X DELETE https://example.com/backend-dev/dav/log/foo
| xmllint --format -
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #16 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #15)
> Fixed in:
> - 11.0.x for 11.0.0 onwards
> - 10.1.x for 10.1.31 onwards
> - 9.0.x for 9.0.96 onwards
Thank your for the fix, are you sure this
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
--- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas ---
Seems reasonable to me. I'm about to tag 11.0.0 so I'll fix this before I do.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee f
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
--- Comment #4 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #3)
> So checking I understand correctly.
>
> If the file system ordering behaviour is consistent from run to run then,
> currently, the order of entrie
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #7 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #5)
> Not an issue. There was a bug in the test suite and I just needed to pull
> the latest code. I'll get these changes committed shortly.
Good ad
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas ---
Not an issue. There was a bug in the test suite and I just needed to pull the
latest code. I'll get these changes committed shortly.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for th
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69348
--- Comment #4 from John Engebretson ---
Thank you! :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas ---
Hmm. With these changes implemented I am seeing a failure in the basic Litmus
WebDAV tests. I'm investigating...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for th
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #3 from Remy Maucherat ---
Last,
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/142c45a4271e1fd8d400196a883fb560ebded110/java/org/apache/catalina/servlets/WebdavServlet.java#L1461
should simply use getPathPrefix(req). Only checking the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #2 from Remy Maucherat ---
And
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/142c45a4271e1fd8d400196a883fb560ebded110/java/org/apache/catalina/servlets/WebdavServlet.java#L1809
should also probably use getPathPrefix(req) instead of simply
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #14 from Mark Thomas ---
I have a fix for the comment and the empty directory issue ready to commit. I
just need to run the WebDAV test suite to make sure I haven't broken anything.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Yo
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
So checking I understand correctly.
If the file system ordering behaviour is consistent from run to run then,
currently, the order of entries in a multi-status response is not consistent
between runs. This
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #1 from Remy Maucherat ---
Then
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/142c45a4271e1fd8d400196a883fb560ebded110/java/org/apache/catalina/servlets/WebdavServlet.java#L1468
should use getPathPrefix(req).length().
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Godrej Neopolis changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://www.godrejneopolis
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Bug ID: 69368
Summary: Godrej Neopolis
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: 10.1.30
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
--- Comment #2 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #1)
> Does this become moot if we fix bug 69362 ?
No, it does not because the actual order of the FS is undefined and the order
in hash varies from run to tun.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
Does this become moot if we fix bug 69362 ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69348
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69348
--- Comment #2 from Mark Thomas ---
I'm not sure what the right real-world value is for the Deque either. I've
opted for 4 for now since more than 4 levels of nested lambda expressions seems
unlikely. We can always adjust it later if
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--
You are receiving this
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69365
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
Yes, I think you'll need a default isReadOnly() method on WebResource. Given we
don't want any change of behaviour by default, I think that default method
needs to return false.
--
You are rece
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69365
--- Comment #5 from Michael Osipov ---
How to proceed here since the interface needs a change, should be go with
default methods?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69365
--- Comment #4 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #1)
> (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #0)
> > if (!readOnly || !resource.isReadOnly()) {
>
> Should this be an && instead of
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69365
--- Comment #3 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #2)
> Woot! I get to mention De Morgan's laws!
>
> We can use either of
>
> !(A || B)
> !A && !B
>
> I think the second for
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69365
--- Comment #2 from Mark Thomas ---
Woot! I get to mention De Morgan's laws!
We can use either of
!(A || B)
!A && !B
I think the second for is easier to understand in this case but I think an
argument could be made for either.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69365
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #0)
> if (!readOnly || !resource.isReadOnly()) {
Should this be an && instead of || ?
I would think that DELETE is only allowed if both all-o
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69365
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ch...@christopherschultz.ne
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69365
Bug ID: 69365
Summary: Expose option for WebResource to determine it is
read-only/read-write for DefaultServlet/WebdavServlet
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #13 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #12)
> (In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #6)
> > > Final paragraph of 9.6.1.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #12 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #11)
> (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #6)
> > Final paragraph of 9.6.1.
>
> Also, the complete example in 9.6.2 includes this specific
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #6)
> Final paragraph of 9.6.1.
Also, the complete example in 9.6.2 includes this specific case, and only
includes the file and not its parent directory in
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #10 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #9)
> My reading of RFC 4918 is if we have a status code for baz it should be 424.
>
> Quoting from RFC 2119:
>SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69364
Chuck Caldarale changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Godrej Neopolis Apartments |SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #9 from Mark Thomas ---
My reading of RFC 4918 is if we have a status code for baz it should be 424.
Quoting from RFC 2119:
SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69364
Bug ID: 69364
Summary: Godrej Neopolis Apartments
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: 10.1.29
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
--- Comment #8 from Michael Osipov ---
Incorporated Mark's objection.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #8 from Michael Osipov ---
My counter-proposal for code clarity:
> diff --git a/java/org/apache/catalina/servlets/WebdavServlet.java
> b/java/org/apache/catalina/servlets/WebdavServlet.java
> index e8cb718295..22df7343
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #7 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #6)
> Final paragraph of 9.6.1.
I see:
424 (Failed Dependency) status codes SHOULD NOT be in the 207 (Multi-
Status) response for DELETE. They can be saf
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
Final paragraph of 9.6.1.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #5 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #4)
> See RFC 4918 section 9.6.1. I think this should remain as is.
Are you referring to:
If any resource identified by a member URL cannot be deleted, t
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas ---
See RFC 4918 section 9.6.1. I think this should remain as is.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #3 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #1)
> > It's always being like that. The reason might have been to avoid being too
> > redund
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #2 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #1)
> It's always being like that. The reason might have been to avoid being too
> redundant (if not deleting the contents, the intermediate paren
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
--- Comment #1 from Remy Maucherat ---
It's always being like that. The reason might have been to avoid being too
redundant (if not deleting the contents, the intermediate parent folder is also
obviously not getting deleted) but it
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
Bug ID: 69363
Summary: WebdavServlet#parseProperties() incorrectly calculates
href
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware: All
OS: All
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69362
Bug ID: 69362
Summary: Recursive nested collection DELETE not reflected in
multi-status report from WebdavServlet
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware: All
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69359
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
--- Comment #6 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #5)
> (In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #3)
> > > METHOD_NOT_ALLOWED is not a bad st
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69361
Bug ID: 69361
Summary: Make error list report in WebdavServlet to be sent in
processing order
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware: All
OS: All
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
--- Comment #5 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #4)
> (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #3)
> > METHOD_NOT_ALLOWED is not a bad status to return for WebDAV DELETE if it
> > fails, althou
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
--- Comment #4 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #3)
> METHOD_NOT_ALLOWED is not a bad status to return for WebDAV DELETE if it
> fails, although 500 is ok as well since the cause is not really known.
Wel
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69359
--- Comment #2 from Michael Osipov ---
Fixed in:
- main for 12.0.0-M1 and onwards
- 11.0.x for 11.0.0 and onwards
- 10.1.x for 10.1.31 and onwards
- 9.0.x for 9.0.96 and onwards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
--- Comment #3 from Remy Maucherat ---
METHOD_NOT_ALLOWED is not a bad status to return for WebDAV DELETE if it fails,
although 500 is ok as well since the cause is not really known.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
--- Comment #2 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #1)
> Moreover, I'd even use the method sendNotAllowed() for consistency reasons.
Nope, won't work because when a collection is hit it could be part
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
--- Comment #1 from Michael Osipov ---
Moreover, I'd even use the method sendNotAllowed() for consistency reasons.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for th
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69360
Bug ID: 69360
Summary: Inconsistent DELETE behavior between DefaultServlet
and WebdavServlet
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware: All
OS: All
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69359
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
+1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69359
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69359
Bug ID: 69359
Summary: WebdavServlet duplicates getRelativePath() method from
super class with incorrect Javadoc
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.95
Hardware: All
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #3 from Remy Maucherat ---
I see a trend in the PRs that you are submitting. Trying to be as precise as
possible is a commendable goal, but the problem is that this exactitude does
not make much sense in the context of Tomcat since
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #2 from Igal Sapir ---
(In reply to Chen Jp from comment #0)
> Currently, RateLimitFitler implements a roughly rate limit algorithm,
> provides closely but not exactly equality with user's configuration. Fo
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
Chen Jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
--- Comment #1 from Chen Jp ---
add PR
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
Bug ID: 69355
Summary: an enhanced exact rate limit control mechanism
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.x
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69353
Chuck Caldarale changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Summary|Review
1 - 100 of 34510 matches
Mail list logo
