https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #28 from Allan ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #27)
> (In reply to Allan from comment #25)
> > Hi Mark, I have carried out a number of connectivity tests. Result as
> > follow.
> >
> > Tomcat 8.5.72-4795df9 and 9.0.57-11
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #27 from Mark Thomas ---
(In reply to Allan from comment #25)
> Hi Mark, I have carried out a number of connectivity tests. Result as
> follow.
>
> Tomcat 8.5.72-4795df9 and 9.0.57-115334b with Oracle Java JDK 9,11,13
> (specifica
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #26 from Michael Osipov ---
Reason is code has been compiled on Java 9+ which is not backward compatible.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #25 from Allan ---
Hi Mark, I have carried out a number of connectivity tests. Result as follow.
Tomcat 8.5.72-4795df9 and 9.0.57-115334b with Oracle Java JDK 9,11,13
(specifically 9.0.4, 11.0.2, 13.0.2) on RHEL 7 and Windows
HTTP
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #24 from Allan ---
Thanks. Will work on it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@to
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #23 from Mark Thomas ---
8.5.x:
https://people.apache.org/~markt/dev/v8.5.72-4795df9/
9.0.x:
https://people.apache.org/~markt/dev/v9.0.57-115334b/
These are not official releases. They are development builds solely to test
whether
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #22 from Allan ---
How about 8.5.74 and 9.0.57 on RHEL 7 and Windows?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe,
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #21 from Mark Thomas ---
Which version do you need and I'll create a test build for you.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #20 from Allan ---
Thanks Mark. This sounds promising. For test in advance, where can we pull this
image?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #18 from Mark Thomas ---
I now have a clearer picture of what is going on.
The fix for bug 65454 included an unintended change. The pre-starting of the
core thread pool was removed. I'll restore that shortly. It also made a bug
tha
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #16 from Allan ---
Hi,
Why woould NIO2 and SecurityManager works with 8.5.69 and earlier 8.5.x
versions and 9.0.50 and earlier 9.5.x versions using the same platform RHEL 7
or Windows and the same Java version?
And when upgrade to 8
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #15 from Mark Thomas ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #14)
> Do you want to keep the previous patch just in case ? It seems like it did
> something on your platform, then.
I don't think so. I think there was something w
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #14 from Remy Maucherat ---
Do you want to keep the previous patch just in case ? It seems like it did
something on your platform, then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|REOPENED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #12 from Manoj ---
We need NIO 2 issue to be fixed for both RHEL and Windows version
Can we expedite this and release Tomcat 9.0.56 and 8.5.74 binaries for RHEL
version As soon as possible ?
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #11 from Mark Thomas ---
It appears that there is an OS component to this.
This works on MacOS but not on Linux (same Java vendor and version).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
Manoj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #9 from Allan ---
Sounds great. Appreciate the quick turn around. Don't mind a slower option for
now. Looking forward to test this in the next release
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #7 from Mark Thomas ---
I've found a workaround. The short version is when running under a security
manager, have the handshake completion handlers for NIO2 always dispatch to a
container thread. Slower, but it works. Commit will fo
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #6 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #5)
> This looks to be related to the NIO2 completion handlers. Secure connections
> do a handshake first so the main request processing is on a completion
> handler t
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas ---
This looks to be related to the NIO2 completion handlers. Secure connections do
a handshake first so the main request processing is on a completion handler
thread. These don't appear to have any security cont
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #4 from Konstantin Kolinko ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #3)
> The issue is valid. I can reproduce it. Working on a fix now.
OK.
Noting that there is nothing but Tomcat and Java code in stacktraces. I expect
those to h
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
The difference between '=' and '==' is that '=' means add this policy to the
ones defined in the security properties files whereas '==' means only use this
file.
The issue is valid. I can reproduce it. Worki
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
Allan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
--- Comment #2 from Allan ---
Hi Konstantin,
I have tried your recommendation but it didn't resolve the issue.
double equal signs
--
export JAVA_OPTS="-Djava.awt.headless=true -Djava.security.manager
-Djava.security.policy==${C
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714
Konstantin Kolinko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
29 matches
Mail list logo
