: Christopher Schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:08 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: JSESSIONID doesn't contain the port
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zsolt,
Zsolt Koppany wrote:
| How can we make tomcat-5.5.25 to store also port
with context path (but without port). It could be discussed
whether or not this is lucky but this is the case.
Zsolt
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:08 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: JSESSIONID doesn't contain
Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Pid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JSESSIONID doesn't contain the port
The problem is that the TC1 sets a value of JSESSIONID that does not
exist in TC2.
Go back and reread the original post. There's only one instance of Tomcat, but there
are two
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zsolt,
Zsolt Koppany wrote:
| Our customer has two tomcats because one instance is the production
version
| of our application and the second one is a test instance of the new
version
| of the same application. Because of that the context-pathes are
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Christopher Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zsolt,
Zsolt Koppany wrote:
| Our customer has two tomcats because one instance is the production
version
| of our application and the second one is a test instance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leon,
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
| http://host:8000/theApp vs http://host:8080/theApp or whatever ports
| he uses? :-)
Oh, right. Duh!
Yeah... I think he's kinda screwed.
- -chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment:
Hi,
we have two web applications running on the same host (with the same tomcat)
but on DIFFERENT ports.
Buf, if one tomcat application refers on URL of the second application the
browser (FF-2.0.0.14 IE-6) get a NEW a new JSESSIONID thus the browser
looses its session-id to the first
Zsolt Koppany wrote:
Hi,
we have two web applications running on the same host (with the same tomcat)
but on DIFFERENT ports.
Buf, if one tomcat application refers on URL of the second application the
browser (FF-2.0.0.14 IE-6) get a NEW a new JSESSIONID thus the browser
looses its session-id
No,
they (must) use the same IP address.
Zsolt
-Original Message-
From: Pid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 2:45 PM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: JSESSIONID doesn't contain the port
Zsolt Koppany wrote:
Hi,
we have two web applications running
From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JSESSIONID doesn't contain the port
we have two web applications running on the same host (with
the same tomcat) but on DIFFERENT ports.
For curiosity's sake, why are you doing that?
Buf, if one tomcat application refers on URL
Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Zsolt Koppany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JSESSIONID doesn't contain the port
we have two web applications running on the same host (with
the same tomcat) but on DIFFERENT ports.
For curiosity's sake, why are you doing that?
Buf, if one tomcat
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, maybe the issue is whether the session of one application can or cannot
be valid for the other. If they just shared a session (and a cookie), then
there would be harmony again.
Or the OP just renames one of his
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, maybe the issue is whether the session of one application can or cannot
be valid for the other. If they just shared a session (and a cookie), then
there would be harmony again.
Or the OP
but the path of the cookie. IMHO the path of the cookie is the webapp
context - /webappname
Leon.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:12 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, maybe the issue is
André Warnier wrote:
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, maybe the issue is whether the session of one application can or
cannot
be valid for the other. If they just shared a session (and a
cookie), then
there would be
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Pid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
André Warnier wrote:
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, maybe the issue is whether the session of one application can or
cannot
be valid for the other. If they
Pid wrote:
André Warnier wrote:
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, maybe the issue is whether the session of one application can
or cannot
be valid for the other. If they just shared a session (and a
cookie), then
there
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Pid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
André Warnier wrote:
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, maybe the issue is whether the session of one application can or
cannot
be valid for
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:09 PM, André Warnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So now that it is settled that different names for the cookies /would/ solve
the problem, is that a possibility in Tomcat ?
Is it possible for one application to influence the name of it's session
cookie, so that we
From: Pid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JSESSIONID doesn't contain the port
The problem is that the TC1 sets a value of JSESSIONID that does not
exist in TC2.
Go back and reread the original post. There's only one instance of Tomcat, but
there are two Connector elements, each
From: Leon Rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JSESSIONID doesn't contain the port
of course it would since there will be two different cookies with
different pathes referring to both different sessions.
The webapps could choose to generate their own cookies with the common
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zsolt,
Zsolt Koppany wrote:
| How can we make tomcat-5.5.25 to store also port into JSESSIONID?
You can't really do that, unless you want to hack-up TC's source.
What you could do is deploy your applications under different context
names, instead
22 matches
Mail list logo
