Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 23/10/2015 11:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2015-10-23 10:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > >> I've made a little progress. >> >> I can see in Wireshark that the initial HTTP/2 connection preface is >> sent followed by a SETTINGS frame are sent by Chrome. >> >> Debug logging in

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 23/10/2015 12:26, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 23/10/2015 11:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >> 2015-10-23 10:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : >> >>> I've made a little progress. >>> >>> I can see in Wireshark that the initial HTTP/2 connection preface is >>> sent followed by a SETTINGS frame

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

2015-10-23 10:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > I've made a little progress. > > I can see in Wireshark that the initial HTTP/2 connection preface is > sent followed by a SETTINGS frame are sent by Chrome. > > Debug logging in Tomcat shows that that data is never processed by the >

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

2015-10-23 15:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > Found it. > > unwrap() only unwraps one TLS Record at a time. If there are multiple > TLS records in the input buffer unwrap reads them all into the engine > but only provides the decrypt for the first. Further calls to unwrap are >

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 10/23/2015 03:12 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 23/10/2015 12:26, Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 23/10/2015 11:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >>> 2015-10-23 10:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : >>> I've made a little progress. I can see in Wireshark that the initial HTTP/2

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 23/10/2015 08:39, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2015-10-22 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > >> I've got things up and running on Windows (a good opportunity to test >> the tcnative binaries) and I see what looks to be the same problem with >> Chrome + NIO2 in that no images are

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

2015-10-22 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > I've got things up and running on Windows (a good opportunity to test > the tcnative binaries) and I see what looks to be the same problem with > Chrome + NIO2 in that no images are displayed. Even a simple HTTP/2 page > fails. > If

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 19/10/2015 13:38, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2015-10-19 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : >> Anything reproducible? > > Chrome mostly, Firefox is a bit nicer for me. I use JF's ApacheCon example > as well so that issues are easier to see: >

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

2015-10-22 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > On 19/10/2015 13:38, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > 2015-10-19 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > > >> Anything reproducible? > > > > Chrome mostly, Firefox is a bit nicer for me. I use JF's ApacheCon > example > > as well so

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 10/22/2015 05:19 PM, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2015-10-22 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > >> On 19/10/2015 13:38, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >>> 2015-10-19 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : >> Anything reproducible? >>> >>> Chrome mostly, Firefox is a bit nicer

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 21/10/2015 15:31, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2015-10-21 16:14 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > >> On 20/10/2015 15:30, Mark Thomas wrote: >> >>> I found the root cause of the Gump failure. It was an error in the >>> refactoring when I switched WebSocket from Servlet 3.1 non-blockin I/O

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

2015-10-21 16:14 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > On 20/10/2015 15:30, Mark Thomas wrote: > > > I found the root cause of the Gump failure. It was an error in the > > refactoring when I switched WebSocket from Servlet 3.1 non-blockin I/O > > to goting directly to Tomcat's I/O layer. >

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 20/10/2015 15:30, Mark Thomas wrote: > I found the root cause of the Gump failure. It was an error in the > refactoring when I switched WebSocket from Servlet 3.1 non-blockin I/O > to goting directly to Tomcat's I/O layer. > > I'll take a look at NIO2/Chrome next. Sorry, I still haven't got

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

ing and the HTTP/2 implementation. >> >> 9.0.x is now aligned with Servlet 4.0.b01 plus a couple of minor API >> tweaks made post that release. >> >> I think now is the time to give users a chance to use 9.0.x so we can >> start gathering feedback on what works and w

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 20/10/2015 14:31, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 20/10/2015 14:11, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >> 2015-10-20 14:14 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : >> The other thing I want to look at before RC1 is the current Gump/BuildBot failures. >>> >>> I'm going to start looking at these now. I

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

2015-10-20 14:14 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > > The other thing I want to look at before RC1 is the current > > Gump/BuildBot failures. > > I'm going to start looking at these now. I also won't be surprised if > the refactoring triggers a couple of additional failures. The

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 20/10/2015 14:11, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2015-10-20 14:14 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > >>> The other thing I want to look at before RC1 is the current >>> Gump/BuildBot failures. >> >> I'm going to start looking at these now. I also won't be surprised if >> the refactoring

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 19/10/2015 13:40, jean-frederic clere wrote: > On 10/19/2015 02:24 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 19/10/2015 12:27, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >>> 2015-10-16 12:26 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : >>> I think now is the time to give users a chance to use 9.0.x so we can start

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 10/19/2015 02:24 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: On 19/10/2015 12:27, Rémy Maucherat wrote: 2015-10-16 12:26 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : I think now is the time to give users a chance to use 9.0.x so we can start gathering feedback on what works and what doesn't. I'm still having

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

Servlet 4.0.b01 plus a couple of minor API > tweaks made post that release. > > I think now is the time to give users a chance to use 9.0.x so we can > start gathering feedback on what works and what doesn't. > > Therefore, I plan to tag 9.0.0.RC1 early next week

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

On 19/10/2015 12:27, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2015-10-16 12:26 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > >> I think now is the time to give users a chance to use 9.0.x so we can >> start gathering feedback on what works and what doesn't. >> > I'm still having problems with HTTP/2 and NIOx,

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

2015-10-16 12:26 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > I think now is the time to give users a chance to use 9.0.x so we can > start gathering feedback on what works and what doesn't. > > I'm still having problems with HTTP/2 and NIOx, mostly NIO2. Still no idea why, I simply don't see

Re: Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

2015-10-19 14:24 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > On 19/10/2015 12:27, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > 2015-10-16 12:26 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas : > > > >> I think now is the time to give users a chance to use 9.0.x so we can > >> start gathering feedback on what works and

Plan for 9.0.0.RC1

. I think now is the time to give users a chance to use 9.0.x so we can start gathering feedback on what works and what doesn't. Therefore, I plan to tag 9.0.0.RC1 early next week and call a release vote. Before I tag, there are a few things I want to finish off. They are: - update server.xml to use