On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 14:09, Francis Galiegue wrote:
[...]
>
> Yes, I was kind of wondering whether the .get*() methods required
> symmetry with .put*(). So, this is one of my questions answered.
>
> Along with the question of why Remote{Host,Addr}Filter cleared allow
> and deny before assigning
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 13:59, Tim Funk wrote:
> Looks ok ... a few comments.
>
> RemoteCIDRFilter (most of the below apply to the valve too)
>
> setAllow = If nothing passed - This should clear allow
> setAllow = If a bad "allow" is passed - throw exception. I'd think throwing
> an IllegalArgume
Looks ok ... a few comments.
RemoteCIDRFilter (most of the below apply to the valve too)
setAllow = If nothing passed - This should clear allow
setAllow = If a bad "allow" is passed - throw exception. I'd think throwing
an IllegalArgumentException is OK so no catch is needed. Depending on when
t
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:41, Konstantin Kolinko
wrote:
> 2011/10/10 Francis Galiegue :
>> error handling (what
>> should be done when an illegal netmask is supplied, etc).
>
> I think the called method should fail with some RuntimeException.
>
> That is what will happen with existing RemoteAddrV
2011/10/10 Francis Galiegue :
> error handling (what
> should be done when an illegal netmask is supplied, etc).
I think the called method should fail with some RuntimeException.
That is what will happen with existing RemoteAddrValve if you pass a
value that Pattern.compile() cannot handle. (See
Hi,
that looks good, arrange the formatting and create a bugzilla so it is
not forgotten.
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apac
Hello list,
Frustrated by the limitations of existing
Remote{Addr,Host}{Filter,Valve}, I have coded an implementation of a
Filter and Valve doing netmask-based matching. These valves can also
do IP-based matching (just don't specify a netmask).
Having quite some difficulties writing unit tests fo
